The ADVICER Template for Faculty Reviewer Letters for Promotion and Appointment
Academic Radiology, ISSN: 1076-6332, Vol: 29, Issue: 9, Page: 1413-1416
2022
- 3Citations
- 4Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations3
- Citation Indexes3
- CrossRef1
- Captures4
- Readers4
Article Description
Promotion is an important milestone in the career of academic radiologists. Appointments, Promotion and Tenure (APT) committees require multiple letters of support from both internal and external referees. Traditional narrative letters are highly subjective, have high inter-reader variability, are time-intensive, and vulnerable to gender and other biases. The Alliance of Directors and Vice Chairs of Education in Radiology (ADVICER) recognized the need for a standardized template to assist academic faculty, letter writers, and APT committees. An ADVICER ad hoc committee of six educators with experience serving as external referees was convened to create a standardized template. Committee members performed a search of the relevant literature and internet sites, spoke with stakeholders such as APT chairs, and ultimately developed a template for faculty reviewer letters using the common clinician-educator pathway as a focal point. An open source, modifiable, standardized, template was produced. The template has been made available to ADVICER members and is available on the Association of University Radiologists (AUR) website at: https://www.aur.org/resources/Template-for-Faculty-Reviewer-Letters-for-Promotion-and-Appointment This external referee template has the potential to reduce subjectivity, eliminate bias, and provide a flexible, modifiable, comprehensive faculty review letter template which will be useful for academic faculty, letter writers, and promotions committees.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S107663322100619X; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2021.12.027; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85123578792&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35094948; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S107663322100619X; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2021.12.027
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know