{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01316872427983539, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.909090909090909, '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}}
Are computer-based educational materials recognized as publications? An analysis of promotion documents at American medical colleges.

A generalized perception exists that faculty will not be properly rewarded for efforts in developing computer-based educational materials. Faculty governed by traditional promotion and tenure systems thus may be reluctant to devote energies towards development of these materials. Recent national panels on educational reform have called for a reexamination of academic reward structures to insure that faculty receive appropriate scholarly recognition for materials developed in these new formats. A study of policy documents from accredited medical colleges in the United States was conducted to determine the extent to which academic health science institutions have adopted policies to grant recognition of computer-based materials equivalent to that accorded traditional print publications. Results revealed that while some progress has been made by leading-edge institutions, in three-quarters of the institutions, development of computer-based educational materials is considered evidence in support of teaching, not the more highly rewarded research or scholarly activity.