Mahamid A. Surgical paradox: Pen vs scalpel-an opinion review on reforming academic promotion. World J Methodol 2026; 16(3): 117516 [DOI: 10.5662/wjm.v16.i3.117516]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Ahmad Mahamid, MD, Assistant Professor, Director of HPB Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Efron St 1, Haifa 3200003, Israel. mahamidam@yahoo.com
Research Domain of This Article
Surgery
Article-Type of This Article
review-article
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Methodol. Sep 20, 2026; 16(3): 117516 Published online Sep 20, 2026. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v16.i3.117516
Surgical paradox: Pen vs scalpel-an opinion review on reforming academic promotion
Ahmad Mahamid
Ahmad Mahamid, Department of Surgery, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Haifa 3200003, Israel
Ahmad Mahamid, Department of Surgery, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa 3436212, Israel
Author contributions: Mahamid A contributed to research design, acquisition, analysis or Interpretation of data, drafting the paper or revising it critically, approving the submitted version.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest related to this work.
Corresponding author: Ahmad Mahamid, MD, Assistant Professor, Director of HPB Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Efron St 1, Haifa 3200003, Israel. mahamidam@yahoo.com
Received: December 11, 2025 Revised: January 9, 2026 Accepted: January 29, 2026 Published online: September 20, 2026 Processing time: 211 Days and 10.5 Hours
Abstract
The current system for academic promotion in surgery disproportionately favors quantifiable metrics, such as publications and grant funding, over the demonstration of clinical skill, creating a fundamental “credentialing paradox”. This publication-centric culture, amplified by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, has led to a disconnect where a surgeon’s academic rank may not align with their proficiency in the operating room. High publication numbers, often a prerequisite for advancement, can be achieved through statistical analyses of existing data, a trend that may not reflect hands-on surgical experience. The rise of AI further intensifies this dynamic by streamlining research tasks, allowing for high productivity without the “manual drudgery of data gathering”. This focus on the “pen” over the “scalpel” places less-funded faculty and those who dedicate time to clinical care and education at a disadvantage, contributing to systemic disparities in promotion. To resolve this paradox, the surgical profession must redefine academic success by adopting a more holistic framework that formally recognizes and rewards excellence in clinical care, education, and mentorship alongside research output. The goal is to ensure that the most skilled and dedicated surgeons are advanced, ultimately benefiting patient care and the future of the profession.
Core Tip: The current academic promotion system in surgery creates a “credentialing paradox” by prioritizing quantifiable publication metrics over clinical mastery. This culture, further complicated by the rise of artificial intelligence, risks advancing “statistician-surgeons” while devaluing the essential expertise required in the operating room. This opinion review advocates for a multidimensional framework that formally recognizes excellence in clinical care, education, and mentorship alongside traditional research. Rebalancing these metrics is vital to ensure that surgical leadership reflects professional proficiency, ultimately improving patient care and institutional equity.
