Scholarly Productivity in U.S. Academic Musculoskeletal Radiology Faculty: Clinical Track Versus Tenure/Research Track Analysis

Rationale and Objectives In U.S. academic radiology, clinical and tenure/research tracks can carry different expectations for scholarship. Accordingly, this study compared bibliometric productivity between clinical-track and tenure/research-track U.S. academic musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology faculty across ranks. Materials and Methods A cross-sectional bibliometric study of U.S. academic MSK radiology faculty was conducted using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) public program directory and an MSK fellowship program list. Academic rank (assistant, associate, or full professor) and career track were assigned from publicly available institutional titles. Academic age was defined as years from first indexed publication to 2025. Results Among 610 faculty, 259 (42.5%) were clinical track and 351 (57.5%) tenure/research. Clinical-track assistant professors had higher publications, citations, and h-index than tenure/research assistant professors (all p < 0.01). No significant track differences were observed among associate professors (all p > 0.05). Tenure/research full professors had higher publication counts than clinical-track full professors ( p = 0.004), with a borderline higher h-index ( p = 0.056). Across all ranks combined, rank-adjusted differences in all metrics were not statistically significant and were mostly unchanged after accounting for academic age. Variance decomposition showed that academic age and rank accounted for nearly all explained variability in bibliometric measures (∼97–99%), whereas track and sex contributed minimally. Conclusion Track-related differences in bibliometric productivity were rank-dependent, with higher metrics among clinical-track assistant professors and higher publication counts among tenure/research-track full professors. Overall, academic age and rank accounted for most variability in bibliometric measures.