Academic radiology · 2026
Referee Letters for Academic Radiology Promotion Dossiers: Benchmarking Effort.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mullins Mark E, Catanzano Tara M, Nickerson Joshua P, England Eric B, Robbins Jessica B
Аннотация
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: As part of promotion consideration, letters of evaluation are requested from external (to the candidate's institution) reviewers (referees). In some instances, internal letters are also requested. The process of responding to, reviewing the provided materials, writing the letter, and submitting it takes time. To our knowledge, there is no benchmark for the number of reference letters requested from senior faculty to or the time required to provide these letters. Our aim was to quantify this effort.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 5 Professors at different institutions, in different parts of the United States, representing a range of subspecialties, were anonymously surveyed. The number and type of referee letters written, estimates of the time spent with each portion of letter writing, and the number of years writing letters were tabulated.
RESULTS: In total, this group has written 218 letters over 49 total years of service (Table 1). This consisted of 179 external (average 4.7/year) and 39 internal (0.8/year). There were 28 instances of repeat letter requests (including consideration for different faculty ranks and changing institutions). We estimate it takes between 2.5 and 8 h to complete the necessary review of institutional guidelines and individual qualifications to complete one of these letters (Table 2).
CONCLUSION: This work provides benchmarking information for the academic radiology community, including appointment and promotions committees, department chairs, and faculty members. The time, effort, energy, and attention that is required is significant but essential to academic career advancement. We recommend that departments and institutions recognize and assign value to this work.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 5 Professors at different institutions, in different parts of the United States, representing a range of subspecialties, were anonymously surveyed. The number and type of referee letters written, estimates of the time spent with each portion of letter writing, and the number of years writing letters were tabulated.
RESULTS: In total, this group has written 218 letters over 49 total years of service (Table 1). This consisted of 179 external (average 4.7/year) and 39 internal (0.8/year). There were 28 instances of repeat letter requests (including consideration for different faculty ranks and changing institutions). We estimate it takes between 2.5 and 8 h to complete the necessary review of institutional guidelines and individual qualifications to complete one of these letters (Table 2).
CONCLUSION: This work provides benchmarking information for the academic radiology community, including appointment and promotions committees, department chairs, and faculty members. The time, effort, energy, and attention that is required is significant but essential to academic career advancement. We recommend that departments and institutions recognize and assign value to this work.