BACKGROUND The publication requirement for board certification in Small Animal Internal Medicine (SAIM) by the ACVIM is controversial. OBJECTIVE 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. METHODS 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 A majority of SAIM Diplomates favored the retention of the publication requirement in some form. CredPubs were cited at rates similar to control articles.