{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019182652210175146, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025020850708924102, 'mean_word_length': 5.70391061452514, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Commentary on: A Comparison of Research Productivity Across Plastic Surgery Fellowship Directors.

What defines a true academician? A sincere dedication to bettering the field by sharing ideas and educating junior surgeons is possibly the most invaluable aspect of surgical training. Yet, with the institutionalization of academic medicine, physicians are presented with pressures to produce in other arenas in order to secure academic promotion. Teaching and mentoring skills fall to the wayside as more tangible benchmarks of academic productivity, such as publications and clinical revenue generated, gain importance.

This article attempts to measure academic productivity of fellowship directors based on research productivity and, in turn, to correlate this with academic rank.1 Herein lie two fundamental flaws. First, the appraisal of academic productivity with solely bibliometric indices is misguided. Research productivity, while often used to determine academic promotion, does not paint a comprehensive picture of academic productivity by any means.2-4 The prototype of academic medicine is only completely qualified with the three foundational pillars of clinical care, research, and …