Abstract
BACKGROUND: The publication requirement for board certification in Small Animal Internal Medicine (SAIM) by the ACVIM is controversial. OBJECTIVES: Directly and indirectly evaluate the perceptions SAIM Diplomates have on the publication requirement. A secondary objective was to compare the frequency with which publications submitted for credentialing purposes (CredPubs) were cited compared to control articles. SUBJECTS: One thousand two hundred forty-one SAIM Diplomates were sent an electronic survey. METHODS: A electronic survey was sent to all SAIM Diplomates. Practice websites were evaluated for reference to publication or research. An electronic database was searched to identify the number of times a subset of CredPubs were cited was compared to control articles. RESULTS: Five hundred six individuals responded. The majority of respondents (n = 428, 85.25%) stated the requirement should be retained either with no changes (n = 186, 37.05%) or with clarifications or modifications (n = 242, 48.21%). A minority of respondents (n = 74, 14.7%) felt it should be eliminated. "Understanding the scientific process" was the most commonly selected reason (n = 467, 92.48%) for the publication requirement. All websites that mentioned research or publication did so using a positive sentiment. With regard to relative citation rates; 17% of CredPubs were in the lower quartile, 59.1% of CredPubs were in the interquartile range, and 23.5% were in the upper quartile compared to control articles. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: A majority of SAIM Diplomates favored the retention of the publication requirement in some form. CredPubs were cited at rates similar to control articles.