scholarly journals Variability in research productivity among Canadian surgical specialties

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. E76-E83
Author(s):  
Henry Wang ◽  
Michael W.A. Chu ◽  
Luc Dubois
Keyword(s):  
Vascular Surgery ◽  
Training Program ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Academic Productivity ◽  
Clinical Group ◽  
Graduate Degree ◽  
H Index ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Academic Surgeons

Background: Academic productivity, as measured by number and impact of publications, is central to the career advancement and promotion of academic surgeons. We compared research productivity metrics among specialties and sought factors associated with increased productivity. Methods: Academic surgeons were identified through departmental webpages and their scholarly metrics were collected through Scopus in a standardized fashion. We collected total number of documents, h-index, and average number of publications per year in the preceding 5 years. We explored whether presence of a training program, graduate degree, academic rank and size of the clinical group affected productivity metrics. Linear regression was used for multivariable analysis. Results: We collected data on 2172 surgeons from 15 separate academic centres across Canada. Wide variability existed in metrics among specialties, with cardiac and neurosurgery being the most productive, and vascular surgery and plastic surgery being the least productive. The average number of publications was 71, and the average h-index was 18.7. The average h-index for cardiac surgery was 25.7 compared with 8.3 for vascular surgery (p < 0.001). Our multivariable model identified academic rank, surgical specialty, graduate degree, presence of a training program, and larger clinical group as being associated with increased academic productivity. Conclusion: There is variability in research productivity among Canadian surgical specialties. Cardiac surgery and neurosurgery are productive, whereas vascular surgery and plastic surgery are less productive than other surgical disciplines. Obtaining a research-oriented graduate degree, being part of a larger clinical group, and presence of a training program were all associated with higher productivity, even after adjusting for academic rank and specialty.

Academic Productivity in Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgeons: Identifying Benchmarks Associated With Rank in North America

2020 ◽  
pp. 000313482096628
Author(s):  
Kelly J. Lafaro ◽  
Amit S. Khithani ◽  
Paul Wong ◽  
Christopher J. LaRocca ◽  
Susanne G. Warner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Academic Productivity ◽  
H Index ◽  
History Of ◽  
Fellowship Council ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Promotion Process ◽  
Nih Funding

Background Academic achievement is an integral part of the promotion process; however, there are no standardized metrics for faculty or leadership to reference in assessing this potential for promotion. The aim of this study was to identify metrics that correlate with academic rank in hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgeons. Materials and Methods Faculty was identified from 17 fellowship council accredited HPB surgery fellowships in the United States and Canada. The number of publications, citations, h-index values, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for each faculty member was captured. Results Of 111 surgeons identified, there were 31 (27%) assistant, 39 (35%) associate, and 41 (36%) full professors. On univariate analysis, years in practice, h-index, and a history of NIH funding were significantly associated with a surgeon’s academic rank ( P < .05). Years in practice and h-index remained significant on multivariate analysis ( P < .001). Discussion Academic productivity metrics including h-index and NIH funding are associated with promotion to the next academic rank.

scholarly journals Gender Differences in Research Productivity among Academic Psychiatrists in Canada

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (6) ◽  
pp. 415-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Chauvin ◽  
Benoit H. Mulsant ◽  
Sanjeev Sockalingam ◽  
Vicky Stergiopoulos ◽  
Valerie H. Taylor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
National Level ◽  
Junior Faculty ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Psychiatric Research ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
H Index ◽  
Number Of Publications

Objectives: Gender inequity in academic medicine persists despite increases in the number of women physicians. We sought to explore gender differences in research productivity for academic psychiatrists in Canada. Methods: In a cross-sectional study of the 3379 psychiatrists in all 17 university departments of psychiatry in Canada, research productivity, as measured by the h-index and number of publications, was compared between women and men using a negative log binomial regression model to generate relative rates (RRs), adjusted for career duration (aRR). Findings were stratified by academic rank, institution region, and institution size. A subanalysis of those with 10 or more publications was conducted as a proxy for identifying physicians on a research track. Results: Women (43% of the sample) had a lower mean (standard deviation) h-index than men (2.87 [6.49] vs. 5.31 [11.1]; aRR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.72). Differences were significant only for junior faculty and not for associate and full professors. Comparison by number of publications followed a similar pattern (aRR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.55). Among those with 10 or more publications ( n = 721), differences between men and women were smaller than in the overall cohort for both the h-index (aRR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.87) and number of publications (aRR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.72). Conclusions: Gender differences in research productivity at the national level in academic psychiatry in Canada support a call to adopt a more systematic approach to promoting equitable opportunities for women in research, especially in early career, to improve diversity and enhance future psychiatric research and discovery.

Use of the h index in neurosurgery

2009 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 387-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Lee ◽  
Kristin L. Kraus ◽  
William T. Couldwell
Keyword(s):  
Objective Measure ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Academic Productivity ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Academic Advancement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Citation Statistics ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Neurological Surgery

Object Assessing academic productivity through simple quantification may overlook key information, and the use of statistical enumeration of academic output is growing. The h index, which incorporates both the total number of publications and the citations of those publications, has been recently proposed as an objective measure of academic productivity. The authors used several tools to calculate the h index for academic neurosurgeons to provide a basis for evaluating publishing by physicians. Methods The h index of randomly selected academic neurosurgeons from a sample of one-third of the academic programs in the US was calculated using data from Google Scholar and from the Scopus database. The mean h index for each academic rank was determined. The h indices were also correlated with various other factors (such as time spent practicing neurosurgery, authorship position) to identify how these factors influenced the h index. The h indices were then compared with other citation statistics to evaluate the robustness of this metric. Finally, h indices were also calculated for a sampling of physicians in other medical specialties for comparison. Results As expected, the h index increased with academic rank and there was a statistically significant difference between each rank. A weighting based on position of authorship did not affect h indices. The h index was positively correlated with time since American Board of Neurological Surgery certification, and it was also correlated with other citation metrics. A comparison among medical specialties supports the assertion that h index values may not be comparable between fields, even closely related specialties. Conclusions The h index appears to be a robust statistic for comparing academic output of neurosurgeons. Within the field of academic neurosurgery, clear differences of h indices between academic ranks exist. On average, an increase of the h index by 5 appears to correspond to the next highest academic rank, with the exception of chairperson. The h index can be used as a tool, along with other evaluations, to evaluate an individual's productivity in the academic advancement process within the field of neurosurgery but should not be used for comparisons across medical specialties.

scholarly journals Assessment of the NIH-supported relative citation ratio as a measure of research productivity among 1687 academic neurological surgeons

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Vamsi Reddy ◽  
Arjun Gupta ◽  
Michael D. White ◽  
Raghav Gupta ◽  
Prateek Agarwal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
H Index ◽  
Relative Citation ◽  
Retrospective Data Analysis ◽  
Author Productivity ◽  
Doctor Of Philosophy ◽  
Male Sex ◽  
Number Of Citations

OBJECTIVEPublication metrics such as the Hirsch index (h-index) are often used to evaluate and compare research productivity in academia. The h-index is not a field-normalized statistic and can therefore be dependent on overall rates of publication and citation within specific fields. Thus, a metric that adjusts for this while measuring individual contributions would be preferable. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new, field-normalized, article-level metric called the “relative citation ratio” (RCR) that can be used to more accurately compare author productivity between fields. The mean RCR is calculated as the total number of citations per year of a publication divided by the average field-specific citations per year, whereas the weighted RCR is the sum of all article-level RCR scores over an author’s career. The present study was performed to determine how various factors, such as academic rank, career duration, a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree, and sex, impact the RCR to analyze research productivity among academic neurosurgeons.METHODSA retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database. All physician faculty affiliated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–accredited neurological surgery programs were eligible for analysis. Sex, career duration, academic rank, additional degrees, total publications, mean RCR, and weighted RCR were collected for each individual. Mean RCR and weighted RCR were compared between variables to assess patterns of analysis by using SAS software version 9.4.RESULTSA total of 1687 neurosurgery faculty members from 125 institutions were included in the analysis. Advanced academic rank, longer career duration, and PhD acquisition were all associated with increased mean and weighted RCRs. Male sex was associated with having an increased weighted RCR but not an increased mean RCR score. Overall, neurological surgeons were highly productive, with a median RCR of 1.37 (IQR 0.93–1.97) and a median weighted RCR of 28.56 (IQR 7.99–85.65).CONCLUSIONSThe RCR and its derivatives are new metrics that help fill in the gaps of other indices for research output. Here, the authors found that advanced academic rank, longer career duration, and PhD acquisition were all associated with increased mean and weighted RCRs. Male sex was associated with having an increased weighted, but not mean, RCR score, most likely because of historically unequal opportunities for women within the field. Furthermore, the data showed that current academic neurosurgeons are exceptionally productive compared to both physicians in other specialties and the general scientific community.

scholarly journals A matched cohort examination of publication rates among clinical subspecialty fellows enrolled in a translational science training program

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 327-333
Author(s):  
Shawna L. Ehlers ◽  
Katherine E. Cornelius ◽  
Alexandra J. Greenberg-Worisek ◽  
David O. Warner ◽  
Karen M. Weavers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Training Program ◽  
Matched Control ◽  
Formal Training ◽  
Science Program ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
H Index ◽  
Publication Rates ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Certificate Training ◽  
Science Training

AbstractPurposeThis study examined the effectiveness of a formal postdoctoral education program designed to teach skills in clinical and translational science, using scholar publication rates as a measure of research productivity.MethodParticipants included 70 clinical fellows who were admitted to a master’s or certificate training program in clinical and translational science from 1999 to 2015 and 70 matched control peers. The primary outcomes were the number of publications 5 years post-fellowship matriculation and time to publishing 15 peer-reviewed manuscripts post-matriculation.ResultsClinical and translational science program graduates published significantly more peer-reviewed manuscripts at 5 years post-matriculation (median 8 vs 5, p=0.041) and had a faster time to publication of 15 peer-reviewed manuscripts (matched hazard ratio = 2.91, p=0.002). Additionally, program graduates’ publications yielded a significantly higher average H-index (11 vs. 7, p=0.013).ConclusionThese findings support the effectiveness of formal training programs in clinical and translational science by increasing academic productivity.

scholarly journals An Evaluation of h-Index as a Measure of Research Productivity Among Canadian Academic Plastic Surgeons

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiayi Hu ◽  
Arian Gholami ◽  
Nicholas Stone ◽  
Justyna Bartoszko ◽  
Achilleas Thoma
Keyword(s):  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Academic Medicine ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
H Index ◽  
Publication Number ◽  
Scopus Database

Background: Evaluation of research productivity among plastic surgeons can be complex. The Hirsch index (h-index) was recently introduced to evaluate both the quality and quantity of one’s research activity. It has been proposed to be valuable in assessing promotions and grant funding within academic medicine, including plastic surgery. Our objective is to evaluate research productivity among Canadian academic plastic surgeons using the h-index. Methods: A list of Canadian academic plastic surgeons was obtained from websites of academic training programs. The h-index was retrieved using the Scopus database. Relevant demographic and academic factors were collected and their effects on the h-index were analyzed using the t test and Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test. Nominal and categorical variables were analyzed using χ2 test and 1-way analysis of variance. Univariate and multivariate models were built a priori. All P values were 2 sided, and P < .05 was considered to be significant. Results: Our study on Canadian plastic surgeons involved 175 surgeons with an average h-index of 7.6. Over 80% of the surgeons were male. Both univariable and multivariable analysis showed that graduate degree ( P < .0001), academic rank ( P = .03), and years in practice ( P < .0001) were positively correlated with h-index. Limitations of the study include that the Scopus database and the websites of training programs were not always up-to-date. Conclusion: The h-index is a novel tool for evaluating research productivity in academic medicine, and this study shows that the h-index can also serve as a useful metric for measuring research productivity in the Canadian plastic surgery community. Plastic surgeons would be wise to familiarize themselves with the h-index concept and should consider using it as an adjunct to existing metrics such as total publication number.

Research Productivity of Foot and Ankle Fellowship Faculty

2020 ◽  
pp. 193864002097010
Author(s):  
Nathan Sherman ◽  
Nathaniel Bridge ◽  
Ansab Khwaja ◽  
Peter Du ◽  
Lisa Truchan
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Publication Productivity ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
H Index ◽  
Ankle Surgery ◽  
Fellowship Programs ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Number Of Publications

Background Contribution to literature is critical for progress in the field of orthopaedics. No previous study has yet examined the academic productivity of foot and ankle surgery fellowship faculty. Purpose To evaluate the publishing productivity of foot and ankle fellowship faculty. Methods Faculty and program characteristics of orthopaedic foot and ankle fellowship programs across the United States and Canada were collected from American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and program websites. Faculty publication productivity measures, including publications, number of publications in specific journals, number of citations, and Hirsch index (h-index) were gathered using the Scopus database. Results A total of 48 AOFAS foot and ankle surgery fellowship programs were identified with an associated 185 faculty members. The mean number of publications per faculty member was 44.9 (SD = 53.0; range = 0-323), with a mean h-index of 11.9 (SD = 10.6; range = 0-54). A total of 144 (77.8%) academic-affiliated faculty had a significantly greater number of publications ( P < .01), total citations ( P < .05), and publications in Foot and Ankle International ( P < .05), Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery ( P < .05), Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ( P < .05), and Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons ( P < .05) compared to the 41 (22.2%) nonacademic faculty. There were no significant differences between measures of publication productivity between male and female faculty, except for maximum citations in a single article (67.1 vs 142.3; P < .05). Conclusions Academic-affiliated foot and ankle fellowship faculty have higher research productivity than nonacademic surgeons. The mean h-index of foot and ankle fellowship faculty was 11.9, which is lower than that reported in sports, joints, and spine fellowship faculty but higher than that reported for hand fellowship faculty. Level of Evidence: Level IV

Recent trends in publications of US vascular surgery program directors

Vascular ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 352-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afsha Aurshina ◽  
Anil Hingorani ◽  
Amrit Hingorani ◽  
Ayisha Zainab ◽  
Natalie Marks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vascular Surgery ◽  
Basic Science ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Academic Productivity ◽  
Time Points ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Integrated Program

Objective In order to examine the academic productivity of US vascular surgery program directors, the number of vascular publications listed in PubMed from 2001 to 2015 for US vascular surgery program directors was reviewed. We suggest that this can be used as a benchmark for academic productivity. Methods The names of the program directors were taken from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) website at two time points: December 2009 (Independent Programs) and December 2015 (Independent + Integrated). This was used to query PubMed, which listed 5196 publications: 3284 from 2001 to 2009 and 1912 from 2010 to 2015. Results There were 104 program directors (2001–2009) and 114 program directors (2010–2015) with average number of publications in PubMed per program director as 3.68/year (SD ± 2.31) and 2.80/year (SD ± 2.73), respectively ( P = .01). From 2001 to 2009, 1215 (37%) and in 2010 to 2015, 860 (45%) of the publications were from Journal of vascular surgery. The top third produced 67% and 69% of publications in the two time-points. No statistical difference was ascertained regionally: northeast, southeast, midwest and west ( P = .46). The numbers of publications/year decreased by 17% compared to first 10 years. From 2001 to 2009, there were no programs with no publications which increased to five and three with no Journal of Vascular Surgery publications which increased to 21 in 2010–2015. The independent and integrated program directors published average of 2.85 (SD ± 2.69) and 3.47 (SD ± 3.1) total publications; 1.25 (SD ± 1.4) and 3.47 (SD ± 1.7) Journal of Vascular Surgery papers/year, respectively ( P = .28, P = .23). Changes in the study subject were noted by percentage of total publications: endovascular lower extremity arterial (4.7% to 8.9%), Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) (4.5% to 9.9%), Arterio-Venous (AV) access (0.0% to 3.0%), basic science (14.7% to 6.8%), open thoracic (3.0% to 0.6%). Conclusion There seems to be a significant decline in the number of publications over the last 15 years. Yet, the subject of the publications has progressed from Open to TEVAR with an increase in endovascular publications. However, basic science publications reduced by half.

scholarly journals RESEARCH COLLABORATION WITHIN A DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS: A SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS OF COAUTHORSHIP PATTERNS

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. e58-e58
Author(s):  
Kaitlyn Howden ◽  
Mark Duffet ◽  
Grace Xu ◽  
Anthony Chan
Keyword(s):  
Social Network ◽  
Social Network Analysis ◽  
Network Analysis ◽  
Faculty Member ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
H Index ◽  
The Social ◽  
Number Of Publications

Abstract BACKGROUND Research is a collaborative undertaking. Through collaborators, researchers have access to expertise, experience, and resources which may result in increased research productivity. Social network analysis is a set of techniques that focuses primarily on the patterns and characteristics of relationships among individuals. OBJECTIVES To describe the social network structure —the extent and patterns of collaboration among members — of a department of paediatrics and identify prominent individuals and divisions. DESIGN/METHODS We conducted a social network analysis of coauthorship. We included faculty members in a single department of paediatrics with at least 1 publication. We excluded those with a clinical appointment. We used PubMed to identify publications and Web of Science to obtain the total citations for each publication. RESULTS We included 99 faculty who authored 3 939 publications. The median (Q1, Q3) number of publications per faculty member was 12 (5, 39), ranging from 1 to 478. 83 (80%) of the faculty have coauthored a publication with another faculty member; the median (Q1, Q3) number of collaborators per faculty member was 3 (2, 8) and ranged from 0 to 21. 450 (11%) of publications included more than one faculty member as a coauthor. In the network diagram, 80 (81%) of faculty members were connected by coauthorship to a single large cluster. Neither the number of publications (increase in odds 1.0, 95% CI 1.0–1.1; p = 0.16) or h-index (increase in odds 1.0, 95% CI 1.0-1.0; p = 0.74) was associated with increased odds of a faculty member collaborating with another faculty member. Factors associated with increased odds of any two faculty members collaborating were: being from the same division (increase in odds 5.0, 95% CI 3.9–6.3; p<0.001) and both coauthoring a publication with a common faculty member (increase in odds 4.8, 95% CI 3.8–6.2; p<0.001). Being of different genders or differences in number of publications or h-index was not associated with changes in the odds of collaboration. CONCLUSION Social network analysis of coauthorship can provide insight into the social structure and research collaboration of an academic department. This structure should be considered in efforts to improve collaboration and research productivity.

The Beginning of the End

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parisa Khoshpouri ◽  
Rayeheh Bahar ◽  
Pegah Khoshpouri ◽  
Amitis Ebrahimi ◽  
Omid Ghahramani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Leadership Positions ◽  
H Index ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Male Faculty

Abstract Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between gender, research productivity, academic rank, and departmental leadership positions of pathology faculty in North America. Methods The online information presented for the faculty members in all American- and Canadian-accredited pathology residency programs’ official websites and Elsevier’s SCOPUS were queried to assess research productivity, academic ranks, and leadership positions. Results Among 5,228 academic pathologists included in our study, there were 3,122 (59.7%) males and 2,106 (40.3%) females. Male faculty held higher academic ranks (being professor) and leadership positions (chair/program director) (P &lt; .0001). Males were more likely to hold combined MD-PhD degrees (P &lt; .0001) than females. The median h-index for the male faculty was 17 vs 9 for the female faculty (P = .023). Conclusions Gender has a significant influence on leadership positions, academic ranks, and research productivity among pathology faculty members in North America.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document