Is NIH funding predictive of greater research productivity and impact among academic otolaryngologists?: NIH Funding and H - index in Otolaryngology

National Institutes of Health Funding and Patent Innovation in Academic Otolaryngology (2014-2024)

BACKGROUND

Research productivity, measured through publication and citation indices, is frequently evaluated during the allocation of funding to hospitals, medical departments, or faculty. However, current publication metrics do not sufficiently capture "innovativeness," especially in the realm of health technologies. Patent data, which can serve as markers of tangible innovation, remain underutilized in resource decision-making in otolaryngology.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to explore the relationship between NIH funding and patent production in academic otolaryngology.

METHODS

The Lens Patent Database (lens.org) was used to obtain patent information for all U.S. A61 patents filed in the past decade, affiliated with otolaryngology faculty at 2023 NIH-funded institutions. Faculty data was algorithmically matched to patents and organized into departmental datasets, which included patent totals, citation statistics, and innovation indices. Departmental attributes were collected from publicly available sources. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to identify factors correlated with patent activity.

RESULTS

Analysis of data from 48 NIH-funded otolaryngology departments revealed an average NIH funding of $3.646 million, with a median of 16.5 patents and 51.5 patent citations per department over the past decade. The amount of NIH funding did not significantly correlate with the 10-year patent count but did show a significant, positive correlation with 10-year patent citations (p < 0.05). The number and proportion of PhD faculty, residency program size, and department rankings were also positively associated with patent output (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This research underscores the importance of institutional funding, educational background, and residency characteristics in promoting innovation within otolaryngology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Evaluating factors impacting National Institutes of Health funding in pain medicine

BACKGROUND

While many medical specialties have established links between bibliometric indices, academic rank, leadership roles, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, there exists a gap within the field of pain medicine. The purpose of our study is to examine the impact of research productivity (h-index, m-index, publications, citations), professional degrees (PhD, MPH, MBA), leadership positions (program director, division chief, chairman), and faculty demographics (gender, nationality of training) on attaining NIH grant funding among pain medicine faculty.

METHODS

A complete list of 98 civilian pain medicine programs was included in the study. Between September 1, 2022, and December 30, 2022, departmental websites were accessed to accrue a list of pain medicine faculty listings. Publicly available information was used to extract research productivities, professional degrees, leadership positions, faculty demographics, and NIH grant funding. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis, with NIH funding status as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 696 pain physicians within the academic community were identified. Markers of research productivity such as a higher h- or m-index, larger number of publications and citations, PhD status, and being senior faculty (full professor, division chief, or chairman) were independently associated with NIH funding. There was no statistical difference (p>0.05) among males and females in the number of R grants received.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified many factors associated with NIH funding status and failed to find significant gender disparities in NIH funding. These findings allow for chronic pain programs to have another set of tools to attract, promote, and retain faculty.

National Institutes of Health Funding Among Society of Asian Academic Surgery Members

INTRODUCTION

External funding is fundamental to surgeon-scientists and many Society of Asian Academic Surgeons (SAAS) members have received funding through National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants. The amount of funding through NIH awards amongst SAAS members has yet to be evaluated. Our objective was to quantify the amount and type of NIH funding among SAAS members.

METHODS

A list of all active SAAS members was compiled. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool's Expenditure and Results was queried to identify NIH funding among active members.

RESULTS

Among 585 active SAAS members, 165 (28%) received NIH funding during their career. Of these, 110 members (66.6%) were male and 55 members (33.3%) were female. A total of 420 NIH grants have been awarded totaling $518.7 million in funding. There are currently 47 active grants totaling $34.1 million in funding. When analyzing by type, there were 226 R research grants, 63 K career development awards, 53 T and F research training and fellowships awards, and 78 other awards. Of the 63 members who received a K award, 35 members (55%) have subsequently received an R award.

CONCLUSIONS

SAAS members are highly funded with 28% of members having received NIH funding totaling $518.7 million. SAAS' mission is to foster the personal and professional development of academic surgeons and we found that many SAAS members have the experience to mentor other surgeon-scientists through the process of obtaining NIH funding. Participation in organizations like SAAS can help nurture the success of future generations of surgeon-scientists.

Evaluating Research Activity and NIH-Funding Among Academic Ophthalmologists Using Relative Citation Ratio

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between research activity and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding status of the United States (US) academic ophthalmologists.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of bibliometric data was conducted. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports (rePORTER) website was utilized to identify ophthalmology departments in the US that received NIH funding. Affiliated faculty from these institutions were then identified using NIH rePORTER and institutional websites. H-index was calculated using the Scopus database, and the NIH iCite tool was used to determine the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). The h-index and w-RCR quantified research productivity, while m-RCR measured research impact.

RESULTS

Data on 2688 faculty members from 66 departments we re identified, of which 21% were NIH-funded. Faculty members who received NIH-funding had significantly greater research productivity and impact as measured by h-index (32.5 vs 16.6; p < .001), m-RCR (2.2 vs 1.6; p < .001), and w-RCR (147.2 vs 70.1; p < .001) than their non-funded peers. When stratified by academic rank, NIH-funded faculty still had significantly higher h-index (16.1 vs 7.9; p < .001), m-RCR (2.2 vs 1.4; p < .001), and w-RCR (63.2 vs 61.8; p < .001) than non-funded peers. A similar trend was observed among non-tenured faculty members.

CONCLUSION

NIH funding is associated with higher research productivity and impact among US academic ophthalmologists as measured by h-index and RCR, which suggests that NIH funding may be a critical factor in enhancing scholarly contributions of ophthalmologists.  These findings underscore the importance of continued investment in NIH funding to foster high-impact research within the field of ophthalmology.

Factors Associated with Research Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding in Academic Otology

OBJECTIVES

Bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index (h-index) and the more recently developed relative citation ratio (RCR), are utilized to evaluate research productivity. Our study evaluates demographics, research productivity, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in academic otology.

METHODS

Academic otologists were identified, and their demographics were collected using institutional faculty profiles (N = 265). Funding data were obtained using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports Database. The h-index was calculated using Scopus and mean (m-RCR) and weighted RCR (w-RCR) were calculated using the NIH iCite tool.

RESULTS

H-index (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97-2.31, p = 0.069) or w-RCR (aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.231), was associated with receiving NIH funding. Men had greater h-index (16 vs. 9, p < 0.001) and w-RCR (51.8 vs. 23.0, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (1.3 vs. 1.3, p = 0.269) than women. Higher academic rank was associated with greater h-index and w-RCR (p < 0.001). Among assistant professors, men had greater h-index than women (9.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.025). At career duration 11-20 years, men had greater h-index (14.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.009) and w-RCR (52.7 vs. 25.8, p = 0.022) than women.

CONCLUSION

The h-index has a strong relationship with NIH funding in academic otology. Similar h-index, m-RCR, and w-RCR between men and women across most academic ranks and career durations suggests production of similarly impactful research. The m-RCR may correct some deficiencies of time-dependent bibliometrics and its consideration in academic promotion and research funding allocation may promote representation of women in otology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A Laryngoscope, 134:3786-3794, 2024.

A Comparison of Plastic Surgery Authorship Trends Under Single Versus Double-Blinded Review

INTRODUCTION

Research is key to academic advancement in plastic surgery. However, access to publication opportunities may be inequitable as seen in other fields. We compared authorship trends of plastic surgery manuscripts that underwent single-blinded review (SBR) versus double-blinded review (DBR) to identify potential disparities in publication opportunities.

METHODS

Publications from two plastic surgery journals using SBR and two using DBR from September 2019 to September 2021 were evaluated. Name and institution of the article's first and senior author and journal's editor-in-chief (EIC) were recorded. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact analyses were used to compare author characteristics between SBR and DBR articles.

RESULTS

Of 2500 manuscripts, 65.7% underwent SBR and 34.3% underwent DBR. SBR articles had higher percentages of women as first authors (31.9% versus 24.3%, P < 0.001) but lower percentages of first (50.7% versus 71.2%, P < 0.001) and senior (49.6% versus 70.3%, P < 0.001) authors from international institutions. First (26.0% versus 12.9%, P < 0.001) and senior (27.9% versus 18.0%, P = 0.007) authors of SBR articles tended to have more plastic surgery National Institutes of Health funding. Journals using SBR tended to have higher rates of authorship by EICs or authors sharing institutions with the EIC (P ≤ 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

While associated with greater female first authorship suggesting potential efforts toward gender equity in academia, SBR of plastic surgery articles tends to favor authors from institutions with higher National Institutes of Health funding and disadvantage authors from international or lower-resourced programs. Careful consideration of current peer-review proceedings may make publication opportunities more equitable.

Gender Disparities in Academic Otolaryngology

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate representation of women in otolaryngology by examining authorship of research publications and presentations, awards, research grants, leadership, and membership in related organizations.

METHODS

Authorship was reviewed from articles published in three otolaryngology journals from 2000 through 2021 to assess the frequency and percentages of female and combination of male and female gender authorship. Gender was evaluated for poster and scientific abstract presentations from 2007 to 2021. Gender representation was reviewed for institutional and society leadership positions, award, and grant recipients in the American Laryngological Society (ALA). Changes in the frequency of female and combination of male and female gender authorship over time were examined with Cochran-Armitage test for trend.

RESULTS

A total of 16,921 articles, 1,017 presentations, 480 leadership positions, 129 president positions, and 1,137 awards and grants were studied. Women were first authors in 4,153 (24.9%) and last authors in 2,935 (17.8%) published articles for which gender could be determined. Women were first authors in 372 (37.4%) presentations and last authors in 199 (20.2%). Most presentations had a combination of male and female presentation authorship (630, 68%). Women held 69 (14.4%) leadership positions. Of the award and grant recipients, 327 (28.8%) were female. Significant trends were observed for increasing female representation (first authorship publications increased 69.9% from 2000 to 2020, first authorship presentations increased 73.9% from 2007 to 2013, p < 0.001; leadership and awards from 3% to 18% representation, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The proportion of women receiving awards and holding leadership positions is increasing. Efforts that promote gender diversity may further increase representation of women in otolaryngology literature and among the grant and award winners.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 134:2144-2152, 2024.

The Relative Citation Ratio: An Impartial Assessment of Productivity in Academic Otolaryngologists

OBJECTIVES

Quantification of academic productivity relies on bibliometric measurements, such as the Hirsch index (h-index). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently developed the relative citation ratio (RCR), an article-level, citation-driven metric that compares researchers with others within their respective fields. Our study is the first to compare the usage of RCR in academic otolaryngology.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Database Review.

METHODS

Academic otolaryngology residency programs were identified using the 2022 Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Demographic and training data were collected for surgeons using institutional websites. RCR was calculated using the NIH iCite tool, and h-index was calculated using Scopus. Mean RCR (m-RCR) is the average score of the author's articles. Weighted RCR (w-RCR) is the sum of all article scores. These derivatives are a measure of impact and output, respectively. The career duration of a physician was categorized into the following cohorts: 0-10, 11-20, 21-30, and 31+ years.

RESULTS

A total of 1949 academic otolaryngologists were identified. Men had higher h-indices and w-RCRs than women (both p less than 0.001). m-RCR was not different between genders (p = 0.083). There was a difference in h-index and w-RCR (both p less than 0.001) among the career duration cohorts, but there was no difference in m-RCR among the cohorts (p = 0.416). The faculty rank professor was the greatest for all metrics (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Critics of the h-index argue that it is reflective of the time a researcher has spent in the field, instead of impact. The RCR may reduce historic bias against women and younger otolaryngologists.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 134:592-599, 2024.

National Institutes of Health funding among vascular surgeons is rare

BACKGROUND

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeons conducting research. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to appraise the current scope of NIH funding to vascular surgeons by appraising the characteristics of NIH-funded investigators and projects. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities.

METHODS

In April 2022, we queried the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database for active projects. We only included projects that had a vascular surgeon as a principal investigator. Grant characteristics were extracted from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database. Principal investigator demographics and academic background information were identified by searching institution profiles.

RESULTS

There were 55 active NIH awards given to 41 vascular surgeons. Only 1% (41/4037) of all vascular surgeons in the United States receive NIH funding. Funded vascular surgeons are an average of 16.3 years out of training; 37% (n = 15) are women. The majority of awards (58%; n = 32) were R01 grants. Among the active NIH-funded projects, 75% (n = 41) are basic or translational research projects, and 25% (n = 14) are clinical or health services research projects. Abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease are the most commonly funded disease areas and together accounted for 54% (n = 30) of projects. Three SVS research priorities are not addressed by any of the current NIH-funded projects.

CONCLUSIONS

NIH funding of vascular surgeons is rare and predominantly consists of basic or translational science projects focused on abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease research. Women are well-represented among funded vascular surgeons. Although the majority of SVS research priorities receive NIH funding, three SVS research priorities are yet to be addressed by NIH-funded projects. Future efforts should focus on increasing the number of vascular surgeons receiving NIH grants and ensuring all SVS research priorities receive NIH funding.

Analysis of cognitive framework and biomedical translation of tissue engineering in otolaryngology

Tissue engineering is a relatively recent research area aimed at developing artificial tissues that can restore, maintain, or even improve the anatomical and/or functional integrity of injured tissues. Otolaryngology, as a leading surgical specialty in head and neck surgery, is a candidate for the use of these advanced therapies and medicinal products developed. Nevertheless, a knowledge-based analysis of both areas together is still needed. The dataset was retrieved from the Web of Science database from 1900 to 2020. SciMAT software was used to perform the science mapping analysis and the data for the biomedical translation identification was obtained from the iCite platform. Regarding the analysis of the cognitive structure, we find consolidated research lines, such as the generation of cartilage for use as a graft in reconstructive surgery, reconstruction of microtia, or the closure of perforations of the tympanic membrane. This last research area occupies the most relevant clinical translation with the rest of the areas presenting a lower translational level. In conclusion, Tissue engineering is still in an early translational stage in otolaryngology, otology being the field where most advances have been achieved. Therefore, although otolaryngologists should play an active role in translational research in tissue engineering, greater multidisciplinary efforts are required to promote and encourage the translation of potential clinical applications of tissue engineering for routine clinical use.

The catch-22 of promotion: Is becoming department chair of surgery a threat to the triple threat?

BACKGROUND

Despite the "fourth threat" of administrative demands, department chairs of surgery are expected to continue being a "triple threat": productive in research, outstanding in teaching, and exemplary in practice. Increased demands despite limited time are the catch-22 of promotion. This study investigated the influence of becoming department chair on scholarly vigor.

METHODS

The surgeons listed in the Society of Surgical Chairs Membership Directory website (n = 118) were included in this study. Three measures were compared during the pre- and post-promotion phases: (1) research productivity (annual publications); (2) authorship position in publications (first-authorship, co-authorship, and senior-authorship); and (3) scholarly impact (m-index and National Institute of Health funding).

RESULTS

The median [interquartile range] number of publications per year increased post-promotion versus pre-promotion (7.64 [3.81-14.15] vs 4.12 [2.08-7.03], P < .0005). The median [interquartile range] number of first-authorship publications per year decreased (0.50 [0.00-1.00] vs 0.64 [0.32-1.22], P < .05), whereas the median [interquartile range] number of co-authorship (4.23 [1.98-9.70] vs 2.02 [1.02-3.95], P < .0005) and senior-authorship (1.87 [0.99-4.03] vs 1.00 [0.36-2.24], P < .0005) publications per year increased post-promotion. The mean ± standard deviation m-index increased post-promotion (1.67 ± 1.19 vs 1.23 ± 0.83, P < .01). The mean ± standard deviation annual National Institute of Health grant funding amount of 48% (n = 57) of the department chairs increased post-promotion ($365,000 ± $899,000 vs $98,000 ± $143,000 pre-promotion, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The fourth threat of administrative demands is not a threat to the triple threat. This study showed the department chairs' continued scholarly vigor after promotion, providing insight into their tenacity, resilience, and dedication.

An Analysis of Otolaryngology's NIH Research Funding Compared to Other Specialties

OBJECTIVE

To compare NIH funding in the field of Otolaryngology to other medical and surgical specialties between 2009 and 2019.

METHODS

Data was collected from the NIH RePORTER database on funding dollars received by each specialty from 2009 to 2019. Along with data on total active physicians per specialty using the Physician Specialty Data Book, comparisons were drawn between Otolaryngology and other medical and surgical specialties with regards to trends in total funding and NIH funding dollars per physician. The distributions of grant funding, within Otolaryngology from various NIH institutes among principal investigators, organizations, and subspecialties were further explored.

RESULTS

There were 3810 grants (1147 unique projects) for a total of $1 276 198 555 funded by the NIH to Otolaryngology departments from 2009 to 2019. Statistically insignificant funding increases (P > .05) caused otolaryngology to fall from first to fourth in funding among studied specialties. The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders funded 57% of all unique projects, and 57.2% of all unique NIH projects were otology related. Most projects were basic science related. The top 10 principal investigators obtained 22.3% of the total NIH funding for Otolaryngology. The top 3 organizations over the studied period comprised 26.55% of the total funding, generating a combined 729 grants. Among principal investigators, 63.0% had a PhD degree, 25.3% had an MD, and 9.6% had an MD/PhD.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

NIH funding in Otolaryngology has remained stable and is highly concentrated among a small number of organizations, geographic regions, and principal investigators. Recent initiatives by academic communities have sought to address funding disparities by incorporating diversity and inclusion into clinician-scientist pipelines. We urge our colleagues to strive toward identification of the factors that contribute to successful acquisition of funding and implementation of a more conducive institutional infrastructure to produce research.

Assessing the academic achievement of United States orthopaedic departments

BACKGROUND

Assessing academic productivity allows academic departments to identify the strengths of their scholarly contribution and provides an opportunity to evaluate areas for improvement.

AIM

To provide objective benchmarks for departments seeking to enhance academic productivity and identify those with significant improvement in recent past.

METHODS

Our study retrospectively analyzed a cohort of orthopaedic faculty at United States-based academic orthopaedic programs. 5502 full-time orthopaedic faculty representing 178 programs were included in analysis. Variables included for analysis were National Institutes of Health funding (2014-2018), leadership positions in orthopaedic societies (2018), editorial board positions of top orthopaedic journals (2018), total number of publications and Hirsch-index. A weighted algorithm was used to calculate a cumulative score for each academic program. This study was performed at a large, United States medical school.

RESULTS

All 178 programs included in analysis were evaluated using the comprehensive weighted algorithm. The five institutions with the highest cumulative score, in decreasing order, were: Washington University in St. Louis, the Hospital for Special Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College (SKMC) at Thomas Jefferson University, the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)/Brigham and Women’s/Harvard. The five institutions with the highest score per capita, in decreasing order, were: Mayo Clinic (Rochester), Washington University in St. Louis, Rush University, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) and MGH/Brigham and Women’s/Harvard. The five academic programs that had the largest improvement in cumulative score from 2013 to 2018, in decreasing order, were: VCU, SKMC at Thomas Jefferson University, UCSF, MGH/Brigham and Women’s/Harvard, and Brown University.

CONCLUSION

This algorithm can provide orthopaedic departments a means to assess academic productivity, monitor progress, and identify areas for improvement as they seek to expand their academic contributions to the orthopaedic community.

Factors predictive of an academic otolaryngologist's scholarly impact

Objectives

Describe the h index as a bibliometric that can be utilized to objectively evaluate scholarly impact. Identify which otolaryngology subspecialties are the most scholarly. Describe if NIH funding to one's choice of medical school, residency, or fellowship has any impact on one's scholarly output. Determine other factors predictive of an academic otolaryngologist's productivity.

Study design

Analysis of bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists.

Methods

Active grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to otolaryngology departments were ascertained via the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports database. Faculty listings from these departments were gleaned from departmental websites. H index was calculated using the Scopus database.

Results

Forty-seven otolaryngology programs were actively receiving NIH funding. There were 838 faculty members from those departments who had a mean h index of 9.61. Otology (h index 12.50) and head and neck (h index 11.96) were significantly (P < 0.0001) more scholarly than the rest of subspecialists. H index was significantly correlative (P < 0.0001) with degree of NIH funding at a given institution. H index was not significantly higher for those that attended medical school (P < 0.18), residency (P < 0.16), and fellowship (P < 0.16) at institutions with NIH funding to otolaryngology departments.

Conclusions

H index is a bibliometric that can be used to assess scholarly impact. Otology and head and neck are the most scholarly subspecialists within otolaryngology. NIH funding to an individual's medical school, residency, or fellowship of origin is not correlative with one's scholarly impact, but current institutional affiliation and choice of subspecialty are.

Predictors of academic career placement and scholarly impact in fellowship-trained rhinologists

BACKGROUND

As rhinology fellowship positions outpace the availability of academic rhinology jobs, it is increasingly important to identify characteristics that are associated with academic placement after fellowship completion. In this study, we evaluated the association of academic characteristics during training with current job placement and posttraining scholarly impact.

METHODS

Previous rhinology fellows were identified using publicly available data. Bibliometric indices, training institutions, graduate degrees, and job placement data were used in bivariate and multivariable regression analyses to assess for association with predictors and academic trajectory.

RESULTS

Data from 265 rhinologists, all graduating between 1991 and 2020, were included. Most surgeons (n = 185, 70%) held an academic position and 80 (30%) surgeons worked in a nonacademic setting; 93.2% had a Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree and 80.3% were male. Multivariable logistic regression indicated that a designation of MD, compared with Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO; odds ratio [OR], 5.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.97-21.9), number of publications during fellowship (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41), and h-index during training (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.49]) were independently predictive of academic job placement. Meanwhile, number of primary authorships during fellowship (β = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.07-1.88]), h-index during training (β = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.71), and PhD (β = 4.16; 95% CI, 1.57-6.76) were associated with posttraining h-index. Medical school ranking; graduate degrees, including Master of Science (MS), Master of Business Administration (MBA), and Master of Public Health (MPH); and research metrics before residency were not associated with either academic placement or posttraining h-index.

CONCLUSION

The predictors of academic job placement in rhinology are unclear, but h-index during training, and research productivity during fellowship may serve as indicators of an academic career.

Diversifying Researchers and Funding in Otolaryngology

Research productivity is a key metric used in evaluation for advancement and promotion in academic medicine. There are known gender, race, and ethnicity disparities in otolaryngology research and funding. Female academic otolaryngologists have been shown to lag in scholarly productivity, representation at national meetings, leadership positions on journal editorial boards, and National Institutes of Health and industry funding. Underrepresented minorities have been shown to be less successful at obtaining Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts grant funding. Directed approaches, such as research funding for women and minorities or targeted recruitment and retention of underrepresented faculty, may move the field toward parity.

Bibliometric indicators to evaluate scientific activity

Bibliometric indicators have been devised to quantify scientific production and to try to evaluate its impact in the community. In general, bibliometric indicators can be classified according to whether the unit of analysis is the author (individual or group) or journal. The most widely used indicators for authors are those that measure an individual author's production, such as the Crown index or the h-index and its derivatives (e-index, h5-index, and the absolute or Ab-index, among others). The bibliometric indicators devised to try to evaluate journal quality are associated with Journal Citation Reports (e.g., impact factor, field-weighted citation impact, Eigenfactor, and article influence) or with Scopus (Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), source normalized impact per paper (SNIP), and CiteScore). This article describes the main bibliometric indicators, explains how they are calculated, and discusses their advantages and limitations.

Influence of Department Leadership on Scholarly Productivity and Research Funding in Academic Urology

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the academic achievement of Department Chairperson (DC) and Research Director (RD), when present, is associated with increased scholarly productivity and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of faculty members in academic urology departments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified the DC, RD and faculty members of 145 academic urology departments. The scholarly productivity and NIH funding for each individual faculty member was assessed from 2018 to 2019 using an h-index extrapolated from the Scopus database and the NIH RePORTER tool, respectively. The Spearman correlation coefficient was employed to define the correlation of these parameters. Hypothesis testing was conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

After excluding 13 departments due to missing faculty listing, our final sample included 132 departments and 2227 faculty members. In 2018, the NIH provided $55,243,658 in urology research grants to 24.2% of departments and 4.0% of faculty members. Of departments with NIH funding, 68.8% employed a RD. DC and RD h-index were positively correlated with departmental h-index. DC h-index positively correlated with department NIH funding. Moreover, NIH funding was significantly higher for departments with a RD vs those without a RD ($1,268,028 vs $62,941, P < .001); interestingly, NIH funding was higher for departments employing unfunded RDs vs those without a RD ($2,079,948 vs $579,055, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Academic success of a DC and RD was associated with urology departmental scholarly productivity and NIH funding. The presence of a RD, funded or unfunded, was associated with increased departmental NIH funding.

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

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.

National Institutes of Health R01 Grant Funding Is Associated With Enhanced Research Productivity and Career Advancement Among Academic Cardiothoracic Surgeons

National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding has declined among cardiothoracic surgeons. R01 grants are a well-known mechanism to support high-impact research, and we sought to clarify the association between NIH funding and academic achievement. We hypothesized that cardiothoracic surgeons who acquired R01 funding exhibit greater research output and faster career advancement. All cardiothoracic surgeons (n = 992) working at accredited United States cardiothoracic surgery training hospitals in 2018 were included. Institutional webpages, Scopus, and Grantome were utilized to collect publicly-available data regarding each surgeon's training and career history, research publications, and NIH funding. Seventy-eight (7.9%) surgeons obtained R01 funding as a principal investigator while 914 (92.1%) did not. R01-funded surgeons started their attending careers earlier (1998 vs 2005, P < 0.0001) and were more likely to have pursued dedicated research training (P < 0.0001). R01-funded surgeons authored 5.3 publications/year before their first R01 grant, 9.3 during the grant period, and 8.6 after the grant expired, all of which were greater than the publication rate of non-R01-funded surgeons at comparable career timepoints (2.0-3.0 publications/year, P < 0.0001). Among time-matched surgeons who completed medical school in 1998 or earlier (n = 73 R01-funded vs n = 602 non-funded), R01-funded surgeons have published more total publications (178.0 vs 56.5 papers, P < 0.0001) and exhibit a greater H-index (41.0 vs 19.0, P < 0.0001). These R01-funded surgeons have also advanced to higher academic ranks (P < 0.0001) and are more likely to be chiefs of their departments or divisions (42.5% vs 25.7%, P = 0.0035). Cardiothoracic surgeons who obtain R01 funding exhibit greater research productivity and faster career advancement.

From bench to bedside: trends in National Institutes of Health funding for neurosurgeons from 1991 to 2015

OBJECTIVE

Neurosurgeons play an important role in advancing medicine through research, the funding of which is historically linked to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The authors defined variables associated with neurosurgical NIH funding, prevalence of funded topics by neurosurgical subspecialty, and temporal trends in NIH neurosurgical funding.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of NIH-funded American Association of Neurological Surgeons members using NIH RePORTER (http://report.nih.gov/) for the years 1991-2015.

RESULTS

The authors followed 6515 neurosurgeons from 1991 to 2015, including 6107 (94%) non-MD-PhD physicians and 408 (6%) MD-PhDs. NIH grants were awarded to 393 (6%) neurosurgeons, with 23.2% of all first-time grants awarded to the top 5 funded institutions. The average total funded grant-years per funded neurosurgeon was 12.5 (range 1-85 grant-years). A higher percentage of MD-PhDs were NIH funded than MDs (22% [n = 91] vs 5% [n = 297], p < 0.0001). The most common grants awarded were R01 (128, 33%), K08 (69, 18%), F32 (60, 15%), M01 (50, 13%), and R21 (39, 10%). F32 and K08 recipients were 9-fold (18% vs 2%, p < 0.001) and 19-fold (38% vs 2%, p < 0.001) more likely to procure an R01 and procured R01 funding earlier in their careers (F32: 7 vs 12 years after residency, p = 0.03; K08: 9 vs 12 years, p = 0.01). Each year, the number of neurosurgeons with active grants linearly increased by 2.2 (R2 = 0.81, p < 0.001), whereas the number of total active grants run by neurosurgeons increased at nearly twice the rate (4.0 grants/year) (R2 = 0.91, p < 0.001). Of NIH-funded neurosurgical grants, 33 (9%) transitioned to funded clinical trial(s). Funded neurosurgical subspecialties included neuro-oncology (33%), functional/epilepsy (32%), cerebrovascular (17%), trauma (10%), and spine (6%). Finally, the authors modeled trends in the number of active training grants and found a linear increase in active R01s (R2 = 0.95, p < 0.001); however, both F32 (R2 = 0.36, p = 0.01) and K08 (R2 = 0.67, p < 0.001) funding had a significant parabolic rise and fall centered around 2003.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors observed an upward trend in R01s awarded to neurosurgeons during the last quarter century. However, their findings of decreased K08 and F32 training grant funding to neurosurgeons and the impact of these training grants on the ultimate success and time to success for neurosurgeons seeking R01 funding suggests that this upward trend in R01 funding for neurosurgeons will be difficult to maintain. The authors' work underscores the importance of continued selection and mentorship of neurosurgeons capable of impacting patient care through research, including the MD-PhDs, who are noted to be more represented among NIH-funded neurosurgeons.

Long-Term Academic Outcomes of Triological Society Research Career Development Award Recipients

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Each year, the Triological Society awards several Research Career Development Awards (CDAs) to support early-career otolaryngologists. The objective of this study was to evaluate academic outcomes of CDA recipients including National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding acquisition and h-index. A secondary objective was to appraise gender differences in outcomes among awardees.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Recipients' practice setting, degree type, academic rank, and leadership titles were determined through review of academic and private practice profiles in October 2019. NIH funding was assessed using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool and the h-index was calculated using the Scopus database.

RESULTS

Between 2004 and 2019, 70 investigators received a CDA. Of the 65 awardees prior to 2019, 26 (40.0%) obtained NIH grants after the CDA. Having an MD/PhD or MD/master's was not associated with NIH funding attainment (P = .891) nor with higher funding total (P = .109). However, funding total was significantly higher for full professors compared to assistant professors (P = .022). The median h-index among awardees was 16 (interquartile range = 11-21) and differed significantly by academic rank (P < .001). Moreover, 23 CDAs (32.9%) were awarded to women. However, fewer female recipients obtain NIH funding after the CDA compared to men (10.5% vs. 52.2%, P = .002), and they had significantly lower h-indices than men (10 vs. 17, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

As a cohort, CDA awardees achieve higher academic success than academic otolaryngologists in general. However, female CDA recipients lag behind their male colleagues, highlighting the need for more research to uncover contributors to gender differences and ways to foster equity in research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 131:288-293, 2021.

Top-cited articles in cerebrospinal fluid leak (rhinorrhea and otorrhea) (1945-2018)

Introduction

As scientific knowledge has grown in biomedicine, it has also become necessary to develop tools to manage and understand the body of evidence. In that sense, bibliometrics has become a consolidated discipline for analyzing scientific activity, enabling the characterization of a particular field or area of knowledge by means of the quantification of the bibliographic characteristics of scientific publications.

Objective

The objective of this study was to determine the most frequently cited articles in the field of cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea and otorrhea.

Methods

The searches took place on the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science platform, which includes the MEDLINE database. The study period was limited to 1945–2018.

Results

The 101 most cited articles in the field of cerebrospinal fluid leak were published in 36 journals, and the most important specialties contributing to the literature were neurosurgery and otorhinolaryngology. Of the 101 top-cited articles, 70% were published from 1990 to 2018, with two distinct periods of high scientific productivity: 1990–1999 and 2000–2009. In the first period, the main topic of research interest was endoscopic sinus surgery for cerebrospinal fluid fistulas, whereas from 2000 to 2009, documents focused more on surgical aspects of extended skull base approaches. The articles received 73–767 citations. The top article over the whole study period was “A novel reconstructive technique after endoscopic expanded endonasal approaches: vascular pedicle nasoseptal flap” by Hadad et al., which was published 2006 in Laryngoscope. Its publication represented an inflection point in the literature on cerebrospinal fluid leak and endoscopic skull base surgery, and it gave rise to numerous other research publications.

Conclusion

Different surgical innovations in the field of cerebrospinal fluid leak sparked two different periods of intense scientific activity. Otorhinolaryngology and neurosurgery were the dominant specialties. The most frequent topic studied was endoscopic surgery; others included clinical and diagnostic features, neurinoma surgery, and cerebrospinal fluid leak related to temporal bone fractures.

Evaluation of US Orthopaedic Surgery Academic Centers Based on Measurements of Academic Achievement

INTRODUCTION

Although a variety of agencies have attempted to evaluate the academic achievements of orthopaedic surgery academic centers, most use opaque criteria that are difficult to interpret and do not provide clear targets for improvement. This study leverages a weighted algorithm using objective measurements that has been linked to academic achievement to attempt to provide a comprehensive assessment of scholarly accomplishment for orthopaedic surgery academic centers.

METHODS

We examined full-time faculty at 138 US orthopaedic surgery academic centers; part-time or volunteer faculty were excluded. Five metrics of academic achievement were assessed: National Institutes of Health funding (2013), number of publications, Hirschberg-index (ie, a metric of impact of publications), leadership positions held in orthopaedic surgery societies, and editorial board positions of top orthopaedic and subspecialty journals. Academic programs were given a score for every category, and the algorithm was used to calculate an overall score of academic achievement for each program.

RESULTS

The five most academically productive programs were Washington University in St. Louis, Hospital for Special Surgery, Mayo Clinic, University of Pennsylvania, and Thomas Jefferson University.

CONCLUSION

This algorithm may provide faculty with an assessment tool that can establish benchmarks to help focus efforts toward increasing the academic productivity of their respective programs.

Evaluation of the academic productivity of the top 100 worldwide physicians in the field of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery using the Google Scholar h-index as the bibliometrics ranking system

Objective

The top 100 physicians of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery worldwide were investigated using the Google Scholar h-index.

Method

Although there are various bibliometrics ranking systems that present the academic quantity and quality of scientists’ published articles, the h-index is the most popular and widely accepted. In this study, Google Scholar was used to search all the keywords involving all the subspecialties of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery, with the aim of identifying as many physicians as possible. Obtaining the Google Scholar h-index and citations is not possible for scientists who do not have Google Scholar accounts. Thus, only those with Google Scholar accounts were included.

Results

The average h-index of all 100 physicians enrolled in the study was 37.83, with a range of 25–81.

Conclusion

The current study details the academic impact of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery physicians worldwide based on the Google Scholar h-index.

National Cancer Institute Centers and Society of Surgical Oncology Cancer Research Synergy

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to examine the influence of Surgical Society Oncology (SSO) membership and National Cancer Institute (NCI) status on the academic output of surgical faculty.

METHODS

NCI cancer program status for each department of surgery was identified with publically available data, whereas SSO membership was determined for every faculty member. Academic output measures such as NIH funding, publications, and citations were analyzed in subsets by the type of cancer center (NCI comprehensive cancer center [CCC]; NCI cancer center [NCICC]; and non-NCI center) and SSO membership status.

RESULTS

Of the surgical faculty, 2537 surgeons (61.9%) were from CCC, whereas 854 (20.8%) were from NCICC. At the CCC, 22.7% of surgeons had a history of or current NIH funding, compared with 15.8% at the NCICC and 11.8% at the non-NCI centers. The academic output of SSO members was higher at NCICC (52 ± 113 publications/1266 ± 3830 citations) and CCC (53 ± 92/1295 ± 4001) compared with nonmembers (NCICC: 26 ± 78/437 ± 2109; CCC: 37 ± 91/670 ± 3260), respectively, P < 0.05. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that SSO membership imparts an additional 22 publications and 270 citations, whereas NCI-designated CCC added 10 additional publications, but not citations.

CONCLUSIONS

CCCs have significantly higher academic output and NIH funding. Recruitment of SSO members, a focus on higher performing divisions, and NIH funding are factors that non-NCI cancer centers may be able to focus on to improve academic productivity to aid in obtaining NCI designation.

Academic productivity in surgical oncology: Where is the bar set for those training the next generation?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Promotion and tenure are important milestones for academic surgical oncologists. The aim of this study was to quantify academic metrics associated with rank in surgical oncologists training the next generation.

METHODS

Faculty were identified from accredited surgical oncology fellowships in the United States. Scopus was used to obtain the number of publications/citations and h-index values. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORT website was used to identify funding history.

RESULTS

Of the 319 surgeons identified, complete rank information was obtained for 308. The majority of faculty were men (70%) and only 11% of full professors were women. The median h-index values were 7, 17, and 39 for assistant, associate, and full professors, respectively. While 50% of full professors had a history of NIH funding, only 26% had RO1s and 20% had current NIH funding. Using multivariate analysis, years in practice, h-index, and a history of NIH funding were associated with academic rank (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Objective benchmarks, such as the median h-index and NIH funding, provide additional insights for both junior faculty and leadership into the productivity needed to attain promotion to the next academic rank for surgical oncologists.

Association of Gender With Financial Relationships Between Industry and Academic Otolaryngologists

Importance

Gender disparities continue to exist in the medical profession, including potential disparities in industry-supported financial contributions. Although there are potential drawbacks to industry relationships, such industry ties have the potential to promote scholarly discourse and increase understanding and accessibility of novel technologies and drugs.

Objectives

To evaluate whether gender disparities exist in relationships between pharmaceutical and/or medical device industries and academic otolaryngologists.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An analysis of bibliometric data and industry funding of academic otolaryngologists.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Industry payments as reported within the CMS Open Payment Database.

Methods

Online faculty listings were used to determine academic rank, fellowship training, and gender of full-time faculty otolaryngologists in the 100 civilian training programs in the United States. Industry contributions to these individuals were evaluated using the CMS Open Payment Database, which was created by the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in response to increasing public and regulatory interest in industry relationships and aimed to increase the transparency of such relationships. The Scopus database was used to determine bibliometric indices and publication experience (in years) for all academic otolaryngologists.

Results

Of 1514 academic otolaryngologists included in this analysis, 1202 (79.4%) were men and 312 (20.6%) were women. In 2014, industry contributed a total of $4.9 million to academic otolaryngologists. $4.3 million (88.5%) of that went to men, in a population in which 79.4% are male. Male otolaryngologists received greater median contributions than did female otolaryngologists (median [interquartile range (IQR)], $211 [$86-$1245] vs $133 [$51-$316]). Median contributions were greater to men than women at assistant and associate professor academic ranks (median [IQR], $168 [$77-$492] vs $114 [$55-$290] and $240 [$87-$1314] vs $166 [$58-$328], respectively). Overall, a greater proportion of men received industry contributions than women (68.0% vs 56.1%,). By subspecialty, men had greater median contribution levels among otologists and rhinologists (median [IQR], $609 [$166-$6015] vs $153 [$56-$336] and $1134 [$286-$5276] vs $425 [$188-$721], respectively).

Conclusions and Relevance

A greater proportion of male vs female academic otolaryngologists receive contributions from industry. These differences persist after controlling for academic rank and experience. The gender disparities we have identified may be owing to men publishing earlier in their careers, with women often surpassing men later in their academic lives, or as a result of previously described gender disparities in scholarly impact and academic advancement.

Is there an impending loss of academically productive trauma surgical faculty? An analysis of 4,015 faculty

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to compare the academic impact of trauma surgery faculty relative to faculty in general surgery and other surgery subspecialties.

METHODS

Scholarly metrics were determined for 4,015 faculty at the top 50 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded university-based departments and five hospital-based surgery departments.

RESULTS

Overall, 317 trauma surgical faculty (8.2%) were identified. This compared to 703 other general surgical faculty (18.2%) and 2,830 other subspecialty surgical faculty (73.5%). The average size of the trauma surgical division was six faculty. Overall, 43% were assistant professors, 29% were associate professors, and 28% were full professors, while 3.1% had PhD, 2.5% had MD and PhD, and, 16.3% were division chiefs/directors. Compared with general surgery, there were no differences regarding faculty academic levels or leadership positions. Other surgical specialties had more full professors (39% vs. 28%; p < 0.05) and faculty with research degrees (PhD, 7.7%; and MD and PhD, 5.7%). Median publications/citations were lower, especially for junior trauma surgical faculty (T) compared with general surgery (G) and other (O) surgical specialties: assistant professors (T, 9 publications/76 citations vs. G, 13/138, and O, 18/241; p < 0.05), associate professors (T, 22/351 vs. G, 36/700, and O, 47/846; p < 0.05), and professors (T, 88/2,234 vs. G, 93/2193; p = NS [not significant for either publications/citations] and O, 99/2425; p = NS). Publications/Citations for division chiefs/directors were comparable with other specialties: T, 77/1,595 vs. G, 103/2,081 and O, 74/1,738; p = NS, but were lower for all nonchief faculty; T, 23/368 vs. G, 30/528 and O, 37/658; p < 0.05. Trauma surgical faculty were less likely to have current or former NIH funding than other surgical specialties (17 % vs. 27%; p < 0.05), and this included a lower rate of R01/U01/P01 funding (5.5% vs. 10.8%; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Senior trauma surgical faculty are as academically productive as other general surgical faculty and other surgical specialists. Junior trauma faculty, however, publish at a lower rate than other general surgery or subspecialty faculty. Causes of decreased academic productivity and lower NIH funding must be identified, understood, and addressed.

Recent Trends in Oral Cavity Cancer Research Support in the United States

The objectives were to characterize oral cavity cancer (OCC) funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with a secondary aim of comparing NIH support provided to OCC and other malignancies. NIH awards supporting OCC inquiry from 2000 to 2014 were accessed from the NIH RePORTER database. These data were used to evaluate temporal trends and the role of human papilloma virus and to determine the academic training and professional profiles of the principal investigators. Comparison of 2014 funding levels with other malignancies was also performed, controlling for incidence. Overall funding totals decreased considerably after 2009. Funding administered through the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) was 6.5 times greater than dollars awarded by the National Cancer Institute in 2000. During the period evaluated, NIDCR support decreased in most years, while National Cancer Institute support increased and approached NIDCR funding levels. Funding for human papilloma virus-related projects gradually rose, from 3.4% of dollars in 2000 to 2004 to 6.2% from 2010 to 2014 ( P < 0.05). A majority of principal investigators had a PhD omnia solus (57%), and 13% possessed dual PhD/clinical degrees. Among clinicians with specialty training, otolaryngologists and oral/maxillofacial pathologists garnered the most funding. OCC had a 2014 funding:incidence ratio of $785, much lower than for other malignancies. There has been increased volatility in funding support in recent years possibly due to budget cuts and sequestration. The National Cancer Institute has played an increasingly important role in supporting OCC research, concomitant with decreasing NIDCR support. Our findings suggest that OCC is underfunded relative to other non-oral cavity malignancies, indicating a need to increase the focus on rectifying the disparity.

Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques

BACKGROUND

Women are less successful than men in renewing R01 grants from the National Institutes of Health. Continuing to probe text mining as a tool to identify gender bias in peer review, we used algorithmic text mining and qualitative analysis to examine a sample of critiques from men's and women's R01 renewal applications previously analyzed by counting and comparing word categories.

METHODS

We analyzed 241 critiques from 79 Summary Statements for 51 R01 renewals awarded to 45 investigators (64% male, 89% white, 80% PhD) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2010 and 2014. We used latent Dirichlet allocation to discover evaluative "topics" (i.e., words that co-occur with high probability). We then qualitatively examined the context in which evaluative words occurred for male and female investigators. We also examined sex differences in assigned scores controlling for investigator productivity.

RESULTS

Text analysis results showed that male investigators were described as "leaders" and "pioneers" in their "fields," with "highly innovative" and "highly significant research." By comparison, female investigators were characterized as having "expertise" and working in "excellent" environments. Applications from men received significantly better priority, approach, and significance scores, which could not be accounted for by differences in productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Results confirm our previous analyses suggesting that gender stereotypes operate in R01 grant peer review. Reviewers may more easily view male than female investigators as scientific leaders with significant and innovative research, and score their applications more competitively. Such implicit bias may contribute to sex differences in award rates for R01 renewals.

Recent trends in oropharyngeal cancer funding and public interest

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

The incidence of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) has increased in the United States. This has been driven by an increase in human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive OPC. Our objective is to determine trends in National Institutes (NIH)-supported research funding and public interest in OPC.

METHODS

The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database was evaluated for projects related to OPC between 2004 and 2015. Projects were evaluated for total funding, relation to HPV, principal investigator departmental affiliation and degree, and NIH agency or center responsible for grant. The Google Trends database was evaluated for relative Internet search popularity of oropharyngeal cancer and related search terms between 2004 and 2015.

RESULTS

In terms of NIH funding, 100 OPC-related projects representing 242 grant years and $108.5 million were funded between 2004 and 2015. Total NIH funding for OPC projects increased from $167,406 in 2004 to $16.2 million in 2015. Funding for HPV-related OPC increased from less than $2 million yearly between 2004 and 2010 up to $12.7 million in 2015. Principal investigators related to radiation oncology ($41.8 million) and with doctor of medicine degrees ($52.8 million) received the largest share of total funding. Relative Internet search popularity for oropharyngeal cancer has increased from 2004 to 2015 compared to control cancer search terms.

CONCLUSION

Increased public interest and NIH funding has paralleled the rising incidence of OPC. NIH funding has been driven by projects related to the role of HPV in OPC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2c. Laryngoscope, 127:1345-1350, 2017.

Increasing Research Productivity in Undergraduate Research Experiences: Exploring Predictors of Collaborative Faculty-Student Publications

Little attention has been paid to understanding faculty-student productivity via undergraduate research from the faculty member's perspective. This study examines predictors of faculty-student publications resulting from mentored undergraduate research, including measures of faculty-student collaboration, faculty commitment to undergraduate students, and faculty characteristics. Generalized estimating equations were used to analyze data from 468 faculty members across 13 research-intensive institutions, collected by a cross-sectional survey in 2013/2014. Results show that biomedical faculty mentors were more productive in publishing collaboratively with undergraduate students when they worked with students for more than 1 year on average, enjoyed teaching students about research, had mentored Black students, had received more funding from the National Institutes of Health, had a higher H-index scores, and had more years of experience working in higher education. This study suggests that college administrators and research program directors should strive to create incentives for faculty members to collaborate with undergraduate students and promote faculty awareness that undergraduates can contribute to their research.

Head and Neck Cancer

Despite a considerable expansion in our therapeutic repertoire for management of other malignancies, mortality from head and neck cancer (HNC) has not significantly improved in recent decades. Upon normalizing National Institutes of Health-awarded R01 and R01-equivalent grants by incidence, thyroid cancer ($214) and HNC ($1329) received the fewest funding dollars. Upon adjusting funding totals by mortality, HNC was 7th out of 9 cancers evaluated ($6138). These findings highlight HNC as an underfunded disease versus other cancers. As data detailing grant applications (including unsuccessful grants) are not publicly available, it is not clear if these disparities stem from fewer applications or fewer opportunities. Our hope is that this commentary will spur further investigation into strategies to increase HNC inquiry and funding for trainees as well as early-stage and established investigators.

Demographics and Scholarly Productivity of American Board of Anesthesiology Volunteers: Results of an Internet-Based Bibliometric Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) has been responsible for certification of anesthesiologists since 1938. Selected ABA diplomates provide their expertise to write the ABA's written and oral examinations and to administer the oral examination required for primary certification. The demographics, administrative and educational duties, and scholarly productivity of ABA volunteers and their dependence on subspecialty certification, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) credentials, and grant funding are unknown.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Internet analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

ABA volunteers who participated in the 2015 primary certification examinations identified from the 2016 issue of ABA News.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The 2016 issue of ABA News was downloaded from the public ABA website and was used to identify all volunteers who participated in any aspect of the 2015 primary certification process. Each individual's practice type, faculty rank if applicable, and affiliation were identified using Google with the keyword "anesthesiology." The practice location, time, and interval after original ABA certification; additional ABA subspecialty certification; the number of publications and citations; publication rate; citations per publication; and the H-, M-, and i-10 indices were obtained using the ABA and Scopus databases. Credentials in TEE were identified for each individual using the National Board of Echocardiography database. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) funding for each volunteer was evaluated using NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools and the FAER alumni databases, respectively. Three hundred ninety-three ABA volunteers were identified and analyzed. Three hundred ten individuals currently hold academic appointments (83.5%), whereas 83 (16.5%) hold private practice or military positions. Sixty-seven volunteers have major administrative roles (eg, dean, chief executive officer, associate or assistant dean, chair, vice chair). Thirty-five individuals are program directors of anesthesiology residencies or fellowships. Volunteers published 10,072 manuscripts that have been cited 194,835 times. Volunteers also received 51 NIH grants and 36 FAER grants. The median H-, M-, and i10-indices of volunteers were 4, 0, and 3, respectively. Scholarly productivity was dependent on academic rank, career duration, additional degrees, and extramural funding, but not on practice location, subspecialty certification, TEE credentials, or sex.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicated that ABA volunteers are leaders in anesthesiology with established records of administrative, educational, and scholarly accomplishment.

The impact of members of the Society of University Surgeons on the scholarship of American surgery

BACKGROUND

A core objective of the Society of University Surgeons (SUS) is research focused: to "advance the art and science of surgery through original investigation." This study sought to determine the current impact of the SUS on academic surgical productivity.

METHODS

Individual faculty data for numbers of publications, citations, and National Institute of Health (NIH) funding history were collected for 4,015 surgical faculty at the top 55 NIH-funded departments of surgery using SCOPUS and the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. SUS membership was determined from membership registry data.

RESULTS

Overall, 502 surgical faculty (12.5%) were SUS members with 92.7% holding positions of associate or full professor (versus 59% of nonmembers). Median publications (P) and citations (C) among SUS members were P: 112, C: 2,460 versus P: 29, C: 467 for nonmembers (P < .001). Academic productivity was considerably higher by rank for SUS members than for nonmembers: associate professors (P: 61 vs 36, C: 1,199 vs 591, P < .001) and full professors (P: 141 vs 81, C: 3,537 vs 1,856, P < .001). Among full professors, SUS members had much higher rates of NIH funding than did nonmembers (52.6% vs 26%, P < .05) and specifically for R01, P01, and U01 awards (37% vs 17.7%, P < .01). SUS members were 2 times more likely to serve in divisional leadership or chair positions (23.5% vs 10.2%, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

SUS society members are a highly productive academic group. These data support the premise that the SUS is meeting its research mission and identify its members as very academically productive contributors to research and scholarship in American surgery and medicine.

Understanding the Barriers to Hiring and Promoting Women in Surgical Subspecialties

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to characterize potential disparities in academic output, NIH-funding, and academic rank between male and female surgical faculty and identify subspecialties in which these differences may be more pronounced.

STUDY DESIGN

Eighty metrics for 4,015 faculty members at the top-55 NIH-funded departments of surgery were collected. Demographic characteristics, NIH funding details, and scholarly output were analyzed. A new metric, academic velocity (V), reflecting recent citations is defined.

RESULTS

Overall, 21.5% of surgical faculty are women. The percentage of female faculty is highest in science/research (41%) and surgical oncology (34%), and lowest in cardiothoracic surgery (9%). Female faculty are less likely to be full professors (22.7% vs 41.2%) and division chiefs (6.2% vs 13.6%). The fraction of women who are full professors is lowest in cardiothoracic surgery. Overall median numbers of publications/citations are lower for female faculty compared with male surgical faculty (21 of 364 vs 43 of 723, p < 0.001), and these differences are more pronounced for assistant professors. Current/previous NIH funding (21.3% vs 24%, p = NS) rates are similar between women and men, and surgical departments with more female full professors have higher NIH funding ranking (R(2) = 0.14, p < 0.05). In certain subspecialties, female associate and full professors outperform male counterparts. Overall, female authors have higher numbers of more recent citations.

CONCLUSIONS

Subspecialty involvement and academic performance differences by sex vary greatly by subspecialty type and are most pronounced at the assistant professor level. Identification of potential barriers for entry of women into certain subspecialties, causes for the observed lower number of publications/citations among female assistant professors, and obstacles for attaining leadership roles need to be determined. We propose a new metric for assessment of publications/citations that can offset the effects of seniority differences between male and female faculty members.

Gender Differences in Scholarly Productivity Within Academic Gynecologic Oncology Departments

OBJECTIVE

To estimate whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity among academic gynecologic oncologists.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, the academic rank and gender of gynecologic oncology faculty in the United States were determined from online residency and fellowship directories and departmental web sites. Each individual's h-index and years of publication were determined from Scopus (a citation database of peer-reviewed literature). The h-index is a quantification of an author's scholarly productivity that combines the number of publications with the number of times the publications have been cited. We generated descriptive statistics and compared rank, gender, and productivity scores.

RESULTS

Five hundred seven academic faculty within 137 U.S. teaching programs were identified. Of these, 215 (42%) were female and 292 (58%) were male. Men had significantly higher median h-indices than women, 16 compared with 8, respectively (P<.001). Women were more likely to be of junior academic rank with 63% of assistant professors being female compared with 20% of full professors. When stratifying h-indices by gender and academic rank, men had significantly higher h-indices at the assistant professor level (7 compared with 5, P<.001); however, this difference disappeared at the higher ranks. Stratifying by the years of active publication, there was no significant difference between genders.

CONCLUSION

Female gynecologic oncologists at the assistant professor level had lower scholarly productivity than men; however, at higher academic ranks, they equaled their male counterparts. Women were more junior in rank, had published for fewer years, and were underrepresented in leadership positions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Understanding bibliometric parameters and analysis

Bibliometric parameters have become an important part of modern assessment of academic productivity. These parameters exist for the purpose of evaluating authors (publication count, citation count, h-index, m-quotient, hc-index, e-index, g-index, i-10 [i-n] index) and journals (impact factor, Eigenfactor, article influence score, SCImago journal rank, source-normalized impact per paper). Although in recent years there has been a proliferation of bibliometric parameters, the true meaning and appropriate use of these parameters is generally not well understood. Effective use of existing and emerging bibliometric tools can aid in assessment of academic productivity, including readiness for promotions and other awards. However, if not properly understood, the data can be misinterpreted and may be subject to manipulation. Familiarity with bibliometric parameters will aid in their effective implementation in the review of authors-whether individuals or groups-and journals, as well as their possible use in the promotions review process, maximizing the effectiveness of bibliometric analysis.