Impact of using weighted versus unweighted measures to assess optometry faculty productivity in research.

BACKGROUND: Activities in scholarship and research are commonly self-reported in terms of the number of publications per calendar year or grant-tenure period; individuals might show widely different productivities at different times but specific data on this do not appear to be available for optometry school faculty. METHODS: Using a data base generated from a 20-year activity period at an optometry school, the impact of calculating publication rate by self-reporting or weighted scaling (linear or exponential) according to co-authorship on such publications was assessed for each individual faculty member. RESULTS: Results are presented from a faculty productivity perspective on a calendar year basis or with the faculty members matched for seniority on a year-by-year basis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of weighted scaling to productivity assessment substantially reduced the net output from the faculty in most of the 20 years assessed. The average weighted productivity was generally close to two published articles (excluding book chapters) per year, per faculty member compared to close to three articles per year per faculty member, using self-reported unweighted data.