Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. No commercial re-use. See permissions. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Methodol. Sep 20, 2026; 16(3): 117516
Published online Sep 20, 2026. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v16.i3.117516
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, 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
Revised: January 9, 2026
Accepted: January 29, 2026
Published online: September 20, 2026
Processing time: 211 Days and 10.5 Hours
Core Tip
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.