Is the h-index predictive of greater NIH funding success among academic radiologists?

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.

Open Science in eating disorders: Using current evidence to inspire a plan for increasing the transparency of our research

OBJECTIVE

There is increasing consensus that open science practices improve the transparency and quality of clinical science. However, several barriers impede the implementation of these practices at the individual, institutional, and field levels; understanding and addressing these barriers is critical to promoting targeted efforts in increasing effective uptake of open science.

METHODS

Within this research forum, we drew from publicly available online information sources to identify initial characterizations of researchers engaged in several types of open science practices in the field of eating disorders. We use these observations to discuss potential barriers and recommendations for next steps in the promotion of these practices.

RESULTS

Data from online open science repositories suggest that individuals using these publishing approaches with pre-prints and articles with eating-disorder-relevant content are predominantly non-male gender identifying, early to mid-career stage, and are more likely to be European-, United States-, or Canada-based.

DISCUSSION

We outline recommendations for tangible ways that the eating disorder field can support broad, increased uptake of open science practices, including supporting initiatives to increase knowledge and correct misconceptions; and prioritizing the development and accessibility of open science resources.

PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

The use of open science practices has the potential to increase the transparency and quality of clinical science. This Forum uses publicly sourced online data to characterize researchers engaged in open science practices in the field of eating disorders. These observations provide an important framework from which to discuss potential barriers to open science and recommendations for next steps in the promotion of these practices.

Federal Funding and Citation Metrics of US Biomedical Researchers, 1996 to 2022

IMPORTANCE

Both citation and funding metrics converge in shaping current perceptions of academic success.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate what proportion of the most-cited US-based scientists are funded by biomedical federal agencies and whether funded scientists are more cited than nonfunded ones.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This survey study used linkage of a Scopus-based database on top-cited US researchers (according to a composite citation metric) and the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database of federal funding (33 biomedical federal agencies). Matching was based on name and institution. US-based top-cited scientists who were allocated to any of 69 scientific subfields highly related to biomedicine were considered in the main analysis. Data were downloaded on June 11, 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Proportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists who had any (1996-2022), recent (2015-2022), and current (2021-2022) funding. Comparisons of funded and nonfunded scientists assessed total citations and a composite citation index.

RESULTS

There were 204 603 records in RePORTER (1996-2022) and 75 316 US-based top-cited scientists in the career-long citation database; 40 887 scientists were included in the main analysis. The proportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists (according to career-long citation impact) who had received any federal funding from biomedical research agencies was 62.7% (25 650 of 40 887) for any funding (1996-2022), 23.1% (9427 of 40 887) for recent funding (2015-2022), and 14.1% (5778 of 40 887) for current funding (2021-2022). Respective proportions were 64.8%, 31.4%, and 20.9%, for top-cited scientists according to recent single-year citation impact. There was large variability across scientific subfields (eg, current funding: 31% of career-long impact top-cited scientists in geriatrics, 30% in bioinformatics and 29% in developmental biology, but 0% in legal and forensic medicine, general psychology and cognitive sciences, and gender studies). Funded top-cited researchers were overall more cited than nonfunded top-cited scientists (median [IQR], 9594 [5650-1703] vs 5352 [3057-9890] citations; P < .001) and substantial difference remained after adjusting for subfield and years since first publication. Differences were more prominent in some specific biomedical subfields.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this survey study, biomedical federal funding had offered support to approximately two-thirds of the top-cited biomedical scientists at some point during the last quarter century, but only a small minority of top-cited scientists had current federal biomedical funding. The large unevenness across subfields needs to be addressed with ways that improve equity, efficiency, excellence, and translational potential.

Career Research Performance Among Radiology Early Career Grant Recipients Compared With National Institutes of Health K Award Recipients

OBJECTIVE

To compare academic and demographic metrics among recipients of three major early career radiology, interventional radiology, and radiation oncology grants to National Institutes of Health (NIH) K awardees at the time the grants were awarded and then over the course of their careers.

METHODS

Radiologists who received the RSNA Research Scholar Grant, General Electric Radiology Research Academic Fellowship (GERRAF), American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) Scholar Award, or NIH Career Development (K) Award before January 1, 2015, were included. Research metrics at time of grant award (eg, publications) and subsequent scholarly productivity (eg, academic rank, h-index, NIH funding) were recorded until April 2020. Wilcoxon ranked-sum, chi-square, logistic regression, and standard least-square regression were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

There were 279 recipients: 48 K Award, 115 RSNA Research Scholar Grant, 36 ARRS, and 80 GERRAF. At the time of grant awarding, GERRAF recipients were less likely to have an MD-PhD degree (odds ratio [OR]: 0.36; P = .002) and were more likely to be women (OR: 1.55; P = .042) than K Award recipients. Similarly, recipients of the ARRS (OR: 2.87; P = .010) and GERRAF (OR: 3.19; P = .002) were more likely to have a master's degree. Academic rank, leadership positions, and R01 funding were significant predictors of h-index and total publications over time. Academic rank and the GERRAF were significant predictors of subsequent NIH funding duration but there were no significant predictors of NIH funding amount.

CONCLUSIONS

Early career radiology awards, specifically the GERRAF, provide support for female and non-PhD investigators and result in comparable academic performance metrics to NIH K Award recipients.

National Institutes of Health: Gender Differences in Radiology Funding

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

Radiology has traditionally remained one of the most male-dominated specialties, although a higher proportion of women are now beginning to occupy roles as academic radiologists than their male counterparts. The present study investigated trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding within Diagnostic Radiology stratified by gender, and correlated with measures of academic output, including h-index.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on funding was obtained from the online NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results for fiscal years 2016-2019, and information regarding each Principal Investigator (PI) was obtained from the Scopus database and departmental websites. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed on collected data for statistical comparison of continuous variables.

RESULTS

Of the 2929 grants included in this analysis, 1789 (61.07%) were awarded to male PIs and 1140 (38.9%) to female PIs.  Among PIs holding a PhD degree, male PIs had a higher mean grant amount ($619,807.00) compared to female PIs ($158,486.00).

CONCLUSION

Although female representation within academic radiology has been increasing, the mean NIH grants awarded to women is less than that awarded to men. Reasons for this are numerous and may include differential prioritization of career objectives among men and women, although such rationalization is inevitably speculative in nature. Significant gender differences in NIH funding were seen at the PhD level, and the strongest correlation between NIH funding and academic output was observed for the h-index of female PIs. These results underscore the fact that women are ostensibly being held to a higher academic standard than men in terms of funding decisions.

The Hirsch Index and Self-Citation in Academic Physiatry Among Graduate Medical Education Program Directors

ABSTRACT

The Hirsch Index is a measure of academic productivity which captures both the quantity and quality of an author's output. A well-accepted bibliometric, the Hirsch Index still may be influenced by self-citation, which has been assessed in other medical and surgical specialties. This study aims to evaluate research output and self-citation in physiatry, establishing a benchmark for the field, in addition to identifying differences between physical medicine and rehabilitation subspecialties. This study identified physical medicine and rehabilitation residency and fellowship program directors and analyzed the number of publications, citations, self-citations, and h-indices. A total of 169 program directors were identified, and the mean number ± SD of publications, citations, and Hirsch Index for the cohort were 16.7 ± 29.5, 348 ± 753, and 5.7 ± 6.7, respectively. When self-citation was excluded, less than 2% of program directors (3 of 169) had changes in Hirsch Index greater than one integer, and none greater than two integers. The Hirsch Index remained unchanged for 90% (152 of 169). Spinal cord injury fellowship directors had significantly higher mean number of publications (28, P = 0.04), mean number of citations (672, P = 0.03), and Hirsch Index (9.2, P < 0.01; 95% confidence interval). Overall, self-citation is infrequent in physical medicine and rehabilitation, and spinal cord injury directors had more robust academic profiles.

Gender disparities in the National Institutes of Health funding for hematologic malignancies and cellular therapies

We investigated gender inequality in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for hematologic malignancies and cellular therapies (HMCT). The data were retrieved from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). In 2018-2019, 1834 grants totaling $799 million were awarded (men 71% vs. women 29%) to 975 principal investigators (PIs), including 680 (70%) male PIs and 295 (30%) female PIs. There was no significant gender difference in the mean grant amount per PI. Male PIs as compared to female PIs had a higher h-index (44 vs 31, p < 0.001), a higher number of publications (159.5 vs 94, p < 0.001), and higher years of active research (26 vs 21, p < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, a higher h-index independently predicted a higher mean grant amount per PI (p = 0.010), and female PIs were independently less likely to have a higher h-index (p < 0.001). Our study shows significant gender disparity in the NIH funding for HMCT research.

Current State of Bibliometric Research on the Scholarly Activity of Academic Radiologists

In this review article, we discuss the literature pertaining to the bibliometric analysis of academic radiologists' scholarly activity in order to identify current trends, knowledge gaps, and potential future directions. Current research provides cross-sectional analyses of bibliometrics on three main themes: academic ranking, gender disparity, and research funding. The most commonly used parameters are the publication and the citation counts, the h-index and the number of years in academia. The h-index correlates positively with academic ranking and, in the case of editorial board members, with the journal's impact factor. Scholars who have secured National Institutes of Health funding tend to have higher h-indexes than those who have not. Whereas gender balance has been achieved in medical school and in several medical specialties, women remain significantly fewer than men in most areas of radiology. The underrepresentation of women is particularly noticeable at higher academic ranks and in leadership positions, suggesting that significant barriers to female radiologists' career advancement exist. Scholarly productivity of radiology residents and the impact of research on academic productivity are subjects that have received less attention in the published literature. Future studies should focus on whether bibliometric parameters can be used as reliable measurements of scholarly activity to help determine appointments, promotions and grant allocations, and to assess interventions that promote gender parity.

Gender, Productivity, and Philanthropic Fundraising in Academic Oncology

BACKGROUND

Philanthropic donations are important funding sources in academic oncology but may be vulnerable to implicit or explicit biases toward women. However, the influence of gender on donations has not been assessed quantitatively.

METHODS

We queried a large academic cancer center's development database for donations over 10 years to the sundry funds of medical and radiation oncologists. Types of donations and total amounts for medical oncologists and radiation oncologists hired prior to April 1, 2018 (allowing ≥2 years on faculty prior to query), were obtained. We also obtained publicly available data on physician/academic rank, gender, specialty, disease site, and Hirsch-index (h-index), a metric of productivity.

RESULTS

We identified 127 physicians: 64% men and 36% women. Median h-index was higher for men (31; range, 1-100) than women (17; range, 3-77; P=.003). Men were also more likely to have spent more time at the institution (median, 15 years; range, 2-43 years) than women (median, 12.5 years; range, 3-22 years; P=.025). Those receiving donations were significantly more likely to be men (70% vs 30%; P=.034). Men received significantly higher median amounts ($259,474; range, $0-$29,507,784) versus women ($37,485; range, $0-$7,483,726; P=.019). On multivariable analysis, only h-index and senior academic rank were associated with donation receipt, and only h-index with donation amount.

CONCLUSIONS

We found significant gender disparities in receipt of philanthropic donations on unadjusted analyses. However, on multivariable analyses, only productivity and rank were significantly associated with donations, suggesting gender disparities in productivity and promotions may contribute to these differences.

Scholarly Impact of Academic Ophthalmologists and Vision Scientists in Canada

Objective

To outline the current impact of Canadian ophthalmology and vision science research as measured by novel research metrics.

Design

Cross-sectional survey.

Participants

All Canadian ophthalmologists (n = 687) and vision scientists (n = 119) with an online bibliometric profile and academic appointment at a major ophthalmology training centre were included.

Methods

Faculty lists of Canada’s 15 major academic ophthalmology departments were obtained. Faculty names, appointments, sex, and educational background were recorded. Elsevier’s Scopus database was used to calculate H-index, m-quotient, and total citations for each faculty member. Details around grant funding were obtained through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Funding Decisions Database.

Results

Average H-indices were 7.42 ± 7.98 for ophthalmologists and 23.78 ± 15.25 for vision scientists. Higher academic appointment was correlated with higher h-indices and m-quotients (p <0.0001 for both). Most academic departments had significantly more males than females (avg. 71% male, 29% female); however, more equal ratios were seen in faculties in Quebec. No significant differences in research impact were identified between male and female ophthalmologists when controlled for academic appointment and career stage (p > 0.05). In clinical ophthalmology research, the top three departments with the highest average H-indices were Western University, the University of Toronto, and Dalhousie University. The University of British Columbia, Université de Montréal, and McGill University received the most funding from the CIHR in the last 10 years.

Conclusion

This study highlights the current scope of ophthalmology and vision science research in Canada. Important trends were identified in research productivity across academic rank, sex, and clinical subspecialty.

Gender disparity in dermatologic society leadership: A global perspective

BACKGROUND

In the last half-century, there has been increased representation of women in medicine. Despite this increase, there continues to be underrepresentation of women in medical leadership positions. The objective of this study was to investigate the phenomenon of gender disparity in the leadership of professional societies of dermatology worldwide.

METHODS

Online databases were used to extract the names of global dermatologic societies. Individual society websites were accessed to obtain information on executive members. Data not available on society websites were obtained through internet searches. Scopus was used to obtain H-indexes and other bibliometric outcomes.

RESULTS

Our data collection spanned 92 countries, with 1733 society leaders identified and information available for 1710. In North America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Middle East, women were in a minority in dermatology professional society leadership. In South America, Central America, and Africa, women were in a slight majority. Across all professional societies, the role of president was more frequently held by men (n = 95) as opposed to women (n = 75). Female leaders were less likely to hold concurrent academic positions as deans/chairpersons/directors (83.33%) than their male counterparts (92.06%). The median H-index of female leaders (9) was lower than that of men (14).

CONCLUSION

Gender disparity exists in leadership positions in professional dermatology societies. Cultural/continental specific factors should be explored further. Enhancement of institutional support, mentorship, and sponsorship for female dermatologists should be encouraged.

h-Index Five Years On: Academic Impact Rankings of Neurosurgical Units in the United Kingdom and Ireland

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to re-evaluate the h-index of neurosurgical units in the United Kingdom and Ireland because it was 5 years since it was last reported.

METHODS

Using the Web of Science database, we collated cumulative (1950-2020), 10-year (2011-2020), 5-year (2016-2020), and 3-year (2018-2020) data for neurosurgical units in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Data included h-index, number of publications, and average number of citations.

RESULTS

In total, 37 neurosurgical units were found in the United Kingdom and Ireland, which we ranked according to h-index. Since last reviewed 5 years previously, some units had changed their position, whereas others had remained reasonably static. The top 5 units were the same for the 10-year h-index between 2015 and 2020. The 5-year h-index showed some variation in the top 5 compared with the 10-year h-index. We were also able to compare 2 other studies with similar methods but differing from ours.

CONCLUSIONS

The h-index for neurosurgical units is the most reliable bibliometric, which shows the academic standing and correlates well with amount of research grant obtained and size of department. It is particularly useful when calculated for the most recent 10-year and 5-year periods. Neurosurgical units change their rankings over time and, therefore, it is important to update the tables periodically. We propose an online database with open access showing all h-index and bibliometric data for neurosurgical units in the United Kingdom and Ireland. This database could provide a live and dynamic report of the academic standings of those units and could be used for grant applications and reviews.

Examining Gender Disparity in Academic Abdominal Radiology in North America

BACKGROUND

Gender disparity exists in nearly every medical specialty, particularly in leadership roles and academia. Radiology is not exempt from this phenomenon, with women making up less than a third of radiology residents in the United States (US). This can have long-lasting effects on the career progression of female radiologists. Our search did not reveal any study on gender composition in academic abdominal radiology.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the academic productivity and career advancement of female academic abdominal radiology faculty in the United States and Canada.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Parameters of academic achievement were measured, including the number of citations and publications, years of research, as well as H-index. Information regarding academic and leadership ranking among academic abdominal radiologists in the United States and Canada was also analyzed.

RESULTS

In academic abdominal radiology, there were fewer females than males (34.9% vs 65.1%; p-value 0.256). Among the female radiologists, the greatest proportion held the rank of assistant professor (40%). Female representation decreased with increasing rank. Females had a lower H-index than males (P-value = 0.0066) and significantly fewer years of research than males (P-value = 0.0243).

CONCLUSION

Male predominance in academic abdominal radiology is similar to many other medical specialties, and encompasses senior faculty rank, leadership roles and research productivity.

Ranking Multi-Metric Scientific Achievements Using a Concept of Pareto Optimality

The ranking of multi-metric scientific achievements is a challenging task. For example, the scientific ranking of researchers utilizes two major types of indicators; namely, number of publications and citations. In fact, they focus on how to select proper indicators, considering only one indicator or combination of them. The majority of ranking methods combine several indicators, but these methods are faced with a challenging concern—the assignment of suitable/optimal weights to the targeted indicators. Pareto optimality is defined as a measure of efficiency in the multi-objective optimization which seeks the optimal solutions by considering multiple criteria/objectives simultaneously. The performance of the basic Pareto dominance depth ranking strategy decreases by increasing the number of criteria (generally speaking, when it is more than three criteria). In this paper, a new, modified Pareto dominance depth ranking strategy is proposed which uses some dominance metrics obtained from the basic Pareto dominance depth ranking and some sorted statistical metrics to rank the scientific achievements. It attempts to find the clusters of compared data by using all of indicators simultaneously. Furthermore, we apply the proposed method to address the multi-source ranking resolution problem which is very common these days; for example, there are several world-wide institutions which rank the world’s universities every year, but their rankings are not consistent. As our case studies, the proposed method was used to rank several scientific datasets (i.e., researchers, universities, and countries) for proof of concept.

Influences for Gender Disparity in Academic Family Medicine in North American Medical Schools

Background

Women physicians continue to comprise the minority of leadership roles in Academic Family Medicine (AFM) faculty across North American medical schools. Our study quantified the current state of gender disparity by analyzing academic position, leadership ranking, and research productivity.

Methods

We generated a database for 6,746 AFM faculty members. Gender and academic profiles were obtained for 2,892 academic ranks and 1,706 leadership roles by searching faculty listings enlisted in Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) and Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS). To measure research productivity, we obtained bibliometric data: h-index, citations, and tenure from 2,383 faculty members using Elsevier’s SCOPUS archives. Data analysis and h-index were formulated using Stata version 14.2 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).

Results

Our results indicated that women hold 46.11% (3,110/6,746) of faculty positions. The proportional composition decreased with increasing academic ranking (49.84% assistant, 46.78% associate, and 41.5% full professor). The same decreasing trend was demonstrated with leadership rank (57.14% minor leadership, 47.65% second-in-command, and 36.61 first-in-command). Compared to their gender counterparts, women in AFM demonstrated lower publication productivity as measured by citation number (p=0.04) and years of study (p=0.008). The final prediction equation model after multivariable analyses included gender, publications, citations, country of graduation, and years of active research (p<0.05).

Conclusions

The composition of academic family medicine faculty members included in this study demonstrated gender disparity. Inclusivity initiatives and policies to tackle the issue of female retention, promotion, and recruitment need to be further explored.

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.

A Proof of Concept for Applying the Radicchi Index (hf) to Compare Academic Productivity and Scientific Impact Among Medical Specialties

Many indices have been developed to assess the impact of scientific publications by investigators, disciplines, and institutions. The h-index has emerged as a leading tool in the assessment of the productivity of authors. Differences in publication and citation opportunity among specialties create inappropriate conclusions when the h-index is used to compare authors across different disciplines. An alternative, the Radicchi index, hf, has been proposed to assess the impact of publications across disciplines. We curated a database of all articles published from 2002 to 2015 from the 3 highest impact factor medical journals: New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Lancet, and the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA). With this database, articles were categorized into medical subspecialties. We calculated the respective h-index and Radicchi index of each specialty. We found that the Radicchi index eliminated variability associated with publication and citation opportunity between different specialties when compared to the h-index. The Radicchi index is a useful measure of scientific impact and productivity that advances the h-index by allowing interspecialty comparisons. There remains a need to define a researcher's specialty designation especially if he/she conducts multidisciplinary research.

Research productivity across different ophthalmic subspecialties in the United States

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the h-index, and subsequently the research productivity, among different ophthalmic subspecialties in the United States.

Methods

A cohort of over 15,000 academic ophthalmologists residing in the United States (US) was identified out of the physician list of the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Of them, 1000 ophthalmologists with at least one publication were randomly retrieved, 100 in each of the following 10 subspecialties: cataract, cornea/external disease, glaucoma, medical retina, neuro-ophthalmology, pediatric ophthalmology, plastic/reconstructive ophthalmology, refractive surgery, retina/vitreous surgery and uveitis. Data collected included: number of published papers, h-index score, annual increase in h-index and the mean number of authors on each paper.

Results

The mean h-index amongst all subspecialties was 9.87 ± 13.90, and the mean average annual increase in h-index was 0.22 ± 0.21. The mean number of papers published was 37.20 ± 80.08 and the mean number of authors on each paper was 3.39 ± 0.84. Uveitis was the most prolific subspecialty in mean number of papers (74.78 ± 131.37), in mean h-index (16.69 ± 20.00) and in mean annual increase in h-index (0.35 ± 0.28). The least fertile subspecialty with regards to research was cataract with 11.06 ± 27.65 mean number of papers, a mean h-index of 3.89 ± 5.84, and a mean annual increase in h-index of 0.11 ± 0.11.

Conclusions

This study describes the research productivity in each ophthalmic subspecialty in the US, thus providing information on the research performance of each field and on the expected academic accomplishments within it.

Gender Disparity in Chest Radiology in North America

PURPOSE

In the current cultural climate, gender disparity is a topical and contentious issue. In academic medicine, there is an underrepresentation of female faculty in leadership positions with lower research output and fewer grant awards. We study the gender differences in faculty rank, leadership positions, and research output among chest radiologists in North America.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A list of clinical faculty at radiology programs in North America was obtained using the FREIDA database and program websites. Demographic information and data pertaining to academic rank, peer-reviewed publications, and research productivity of each chest radiologist was obtained from Doximity and SCOPUS databases.

RESULTS

Four hundred ten (281 male:129 female) academic chest radiologists were included. Females were underrepresented at senior faculty level accounting for 18.8% (n = 21) of full, 29.2% (n = 21) of associate and 40.7% (n = 61) of assistant professors. 23.1% (n = 14) of department chiefs were women. Women were more likely to occupy a faculty position in chest radiology in Canada than in US (P < 0.05). The median H-index, and numbers of publications and citations were lower for females than male faculty (P < 0.05). Male faculty had more years of experience - median of 19 years, 16.5 years for females (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Gender disparity exists in chest radiology with similar male predominance in terms of senior faculty rank, leadership roles, and research productivity to other medical specialties. The observed deficiency of research and scholarly output among female chest radiologists and the paucity of aspirational female radiologists in senior academic/leadership positions are factors which perpetuate this gender disparity and contribute to persistence of the gender pay gap.

Academic inertia: Examining changes of scholarly output over time among academic minimally invasive surgeons

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to assess how the Hirsch Index (h-index) and other academic metrics change over time for academic minimally invasive surgeons (MIS).

METHODS

Through the Fellowship Council's website, MIS program-directors and associate program-directors were identified in 2017 and again in 2018. Using the Scopus database, the number of publications, citations, self-citations, and h-indices were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 222 surgeons were included. The median increase of publications, citations, and h-index were 4, 134, and 1, respectively. 75% of surgeons (166/222) saw their h-index increase. In 2017, 26% of surgeons (57/222) had an increase of their h-index due to self-citation. One-year later, 35% of those surgeons (20/57) no longer demonstrated that change.

CONCLUSION

Self-citation remains infrequent within MIS. The h-index of most surgeons will increase over one-year. Many surgeons demonstrating an increase in h-index due to self-citation will see that change eliminated over time.

NIH Funding Ranked "Per Capita": An Alternative Method for Assessing Research Productivity

Ordinal rankings of schools of nursing by research funding in total dollars awarded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a common metric for demonstrating research productivity; however, these data are not based on the number of doctorally prepared faculty eligible to apply for funding. Therefore, we examined an alternative method for measuring research productivity which accounts for size differences in schools: NIH funding ranked "per capita." We extracted data on total average funding and compared them with average funding secured per faculty member across top-ranked schools of nursing in the United States from 2013 to 2017. When examining data by number of doctorally prepared faculty, 4 of 12 (33%) schools that ranked lower in total average funding ranked higher in average funding per faculty member. School size is an important but neglected factor in current funding rankings; therefore, we encourage schools to use multiple approaches to track their research productivity.

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.

Research Productivity of Directors of U.S. Advanced Education in Prosthodontics Programs

The aims of this study were to measure the research productivity of directors of U.S. advanced education in prosthodontics programs (AEPP) and to identify associations between the directors' publication metrics and professional characteristics. A list of AEPP directors was obtained from the American College of Prosthodontists website in December 2015. Information on gender, academic rank, and highest degree was collected from the institutional website for each individual. Citation databases (Scopus and Google Scholar) were searched for each director's h-index and i10-index (both indexes are based on numbers of citations of the author's articles) and total numbers of publications and citations. The search identified 50 AEPP directors. The majority were male and had a primary appointment at a university. Most held the rank of associate professor or professor and held both DDS and MS degrees. The mean h-index and i10-index of all directors were 6.32±6.97 and 6.84±10.77, respectively. Their mean numbers of publications and citations were 24.60±31.21 and 288.40±625.97, respectively. The analysis showed that the program directors affiliated with a university had significantly higher mean values for all indexes than those of non-university-affiliated program directors. Professors had productivity metrics significantly higher than those of other ranks in all measures of research productivity.

Does the Hirsch Index Improve Research Quality in the Field of Biomaterials? A New Perspective in the Biomedical Research Field

Orthopaedic implants offer valuable solutions to many pathologies of bones and joints. The research in this field is driven by the aim of realizing durable and biocompatible devices; therefore, great effort is spent on material analysis and characterization. As a demonstration of the importance assumed by tribology in material devices, wear and friction are two of the main topics of investigation for joint prostheses. Research is led and supported by public institutions, whether universities or research centers, based on the laboratories’ outputs. Performance criteria assessing an author’s impact on research contribute somewhat to author inflation per publication. The need to measure the research activity of an institution is an essential goal and this leads to the development of indicators capable of giving a rating to the publication that disseminates them. The main purpose of this work was to observe the variation of the Hirsch Index (h-index) when the position of the authors is considered. To this end, we conducted an analysis evaluating the h-index by excluding the intermediate positions. We found that the higher the h value, the larger the divergence between this value and the corrected one. The correction relies on excluding publications for which the author does not have a relevant position. We propose considering the authorship order in a publication in order to obtain more information on the impact that authors have on their research field. We suggest giving the users of researcher registers (e.g., Scopus, Google Scholar) the possibility to exclude from the h-index evaluation the objects of research where the scientist has a marginal position.

Alternative Metrics of Scholarly Output: The Relationship among Altmetric Score, Mendeley Reader Score, Citations, and Downloads in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

BACKGROUND

The impact of scholarly output is typically measured by the number of citations and, more recently, downloads. Newer metrics have been developed to reflect digital dissemination of knowledge such as the Altmetric and Mendeley reader scores. This article examines the relationship among citations, download rates, Altmetric scores, and Mendeley reader scores in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

METHODS

The authors accessed the 55 most-cited articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from 2014 to 2015. Altmetric scores, download rates, field-weighted citations, and Mendeley reader number were extracted. Correlation matrices were used to identify methodologies positively correlating between scores. The top-ranked articles were then collectively evaluated for central subject themes and unifying scoring methodologies.

RESULTS

The highest Altmetric score obtained was 159, the greatest number of citations was 52, and the greatest number of downloads was 41. There was no apparent correlation between Altmetric scores and Scopus citations (p = 0.58) or article subject themes (p = 0.63). Citation was positively associated with download rates (r = 0.31, p = 0.021) and Mendeley reader number (r = 0.46, p = 0.001). Mendeley reader number demonstrated high precision in identifying top-ranked citation articles (p = 0.044) despite its lack of direct association with Altmetric score (p = 0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

With the growing public desire for evidence-based publications, our study quantifies the unique nature of Altmetric score while discouraging its use in isolation. Download rates are a more rapid measure of publication impact compared with citation number. Mendeley readership is also promising as an alternative index.

Perception of the importance of chemistry research papers and comparison to citation rates

Chemistry researchers are frequently evaluated on the perceived significance of their work with the citation count as the most commonly-used metric for gauging this property. Recent studies have called for a broader evaluation of significance that includes more nuanced bibliometrics as well as altmetrics to more completely evaluate scientific research. To better understand the relationship between metrics and peer judgements of significance in chemistry, we have conducted a survey of chemists to investigate their perceptions of previously published research. Focusing on a specific issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society published in 2003, respondents were asked to select which articles they thought best matched importance and significance given several contexts: highest number of citations, most significant (subjectively defined), most likely to share among chemists, and most likely to share with a broader audience. The answers to the survey can be summed up in several observations. The ability of respondents to predict the citation counts of established research is markedly lower than the ability of those counts to be predicted by the h-index of the corresponding author of each article. This observation is conserved even when only considering responses from chemists whose expertise falls within the subdiscipline that best describes the work performed in an article. Respondents view both cited papers and significant papers differently than papers that should be shared with chemists. We conclude from our results that peer judgements of importance and significance differ from metrics-based measurements, and that chemists should work with bibliometricians to develop metrics that better capture the nuance of opinions on the importance of a given piece of research.

Influences for Gender Disparity in Academic Neuroradiology

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There has been extensive interest in promoting gender equality within radiology, a predominately male field. In this study, our aim was to quantify gender representation in neuroradiology faculty rankings and determine any related factors that may contribute to any such disparity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated the academic and administrative faculty members of neuroradiology divisions for all on-line listed programs in the US and Canada. After excluding programs that did not fulfill our selection criteria, we generated a short list of 85 US and 8 Canadian programs. We found 465 faculty members who met the inclusion criteria for our study. We used Elsevier's SCOPUS for gathering the data pertaining to the publications, H-index, citations, and tenure of the productivity of each faculty member.

RESULTS

Gender disparity was insignificant when analyzing academic ranks. There are more men working in neuroimaging relative to women (χ² = 0.46; P = .79). However, gender disparity was highly significant for leadership positions in neuroradiology (χ² = 6.76; P = .009). The median H-index was higher among male faculty members (17.5) versus female faculty members (9). Female faculty members have odds of 0.84 compared with male faculty members of having a higher H-index, adjusting for publications, citations, academic ranks, leadership ranks, and interaction between gender and publications and gender and citations (9).

CONCLUSIONS

Neuroradiology faculty members follow the same male predominance seen in many other specialties of medicine. In this study, issues such as mentoring, role models, opportunities to engage in leadership/research activities, funding opportunities, and mindfulness regarding research productivity are explored.

What Effect Does Self-Citation Have on Bibliometric Measures in Academic Plastic Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Research productivity plays a significant role in academic promotions. Currently, various bibliometric measures utilizing citation counts are used to judge an author's work. With increasing numbers of journals, numbers of open access publications, ease of online submission, and expedited indexing of accepted manuscripts, it is plausible that an author could influence his/her own bibliometric measures through self-citation. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of self-citation in academic plastic surgery.

METHODS

A cohort of full-time academic plastic surgeons was identified from 9 U.S. plastic surgery training programs. For all included faculty, academic rank was retrieved from department/division websites, and bibliometric measures were assessed using a subscription bibliographic citation database (Scopus, Reed Elsevier, London, UK). Bibliometric measures included the Hirsch index (h-index, the number of publications h which are cited ≥ h times), total number of publications, and total number of citations. The h-index and total number of citations were collected with and without self-citations. Percent changes in the h-index and total citations were calculated after removal of self-citations and compared across academic ranks and levels of research productivity (total publications, h-index, and total citations).

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 169 full-time academic plastic surgeons. The h-index and total citations experienced decreases of 2.8 ± 5.0% (P < 0.0001) and 4.5 ± 4.6% (P < 0.0001), respectively, after correction for self-citation. More than half of the cohort (n = 113, 67%) did not experience a change in the h-index after removal of self-citations. These decreases did not vary across academic rank. Surgeons who self-cited at rates greater than 5% were 9.8 times more likely (95% confidence interval, 4.5-21.9; P < 0.001) to have their h-index change as a result of self-citation (after adjusting for academic rank). There were weak correlations between percent decreases in the h-index and total citations and various biblimoteric measures (total publications, h-index, total citations; r < 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-citation has a minor impact on common bibliometric measures in academic plastic surgery. The influence of self-citation is consistent across academic ranks and increasing levels of bibliometric measures, suggesting that authors are not manipulating the system with increasing experience.

The Association Between NIMH Funding and h-index in Psychiatry

OBJECTIVE

Academic productivity is measured under many domains: number of high impact publications, objective bibliometrics, securing extra-mural funding, etc. Citation impact is measured by an objective bibliometric called h-index. Securing funding from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is considered prestigious in the field of psychiatry. It is unknown if NIMH takes into consideration the author's h-index during the grant review process. The goal of this study was to determine the correlation between a principal investigator's (PI's) h-index and the NIMH funding.

METHOD

Correlational analysis was conducted on publicly available 2012 NIMH funding data to assess the relationship between NIMH funding and a PI's h-index. A simple linear regression was calculated to predict the h-index based on the amount of funding offered to the PI.

RESULTS

A total of 139 PIs and their corresponding h-index and NIMH funding (direct, indirect, and total cost) were included. A strong correlation was found between h-index and NIMH funding: direct cost (r = 0.632, p < 0.001); indirect cost (r = 0.570, p < 0.001); and total cost (r = 0.639, p < 0.001). Total funding significantly predicted h-index, β = 0.821, t (2.599), p < 0.01, and explained a significant proportion of variance in h-index, R ² = 0.410, F (3, 119) = 27.59, p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

A strong relationship was seen between h-index and securing NIMH funding. Thus, h-index stands out as a reliable measure for assessing the impact of scholarly contributions in academic psychiatry and can be used as an adjunct for performance evaluations, appointment, and promotions in academia.

Alternative Metrics ("Altmetrics") for Assessing Article Impact in Popular General Radiology Journals

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Emerging alternative metrics leverage social media and other online platforms to provide immediate measures of biomedical articles' reach among diverse public audiences. We aimed to compare traditional citation and alternative impact metrics for articles in popular general radiology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All 892 original investigations published in 2013 issues of Academic Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Journal of the American College of Radiology, and Radiology were included. Each article's content was classified as imaging vs nonimaging. Traditional journal citations to articles were obtained from Web of Science. Each article's Altmetric Attention Score (Altmetric), representing weighted mentions across a variety of online platforms, was obtained from Altmetric.com. Statistical assessment included the McNemar test, the Mann-Whitney test, and the Pearson correlation.

RESULTS

Mean and median traditional citation counts were 10.7 ± 15.4 and 5 vs 3.3 ± 13.3 and 0 for Altmetric. Among all articles, 96.4% had ≥1 traditional citation vs 41.8% for Altmetric (P < 0.001). Online platforms for which at least 5% of the articles were represented included Mendeley (42.8%), Twitter (34.2%), Facebook (10.7%), and news outlets (8.4%). Citations and Altmetric were weakly correlated (r = 0.20), with only a 25.0% overlap in terms of articles within their top 10th percentiles. Traditional citations were higher for articles with imaging vs nonimaging content (11.5 ± 16.2 vs 6.9 ± 9.8, P < 0.001), but Altmetric scores were higher in articles with nonimaging content (5.1 ± 11.1 vs 2.8 ± 13.7, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Although overall online attention to radiology journal content was low, alternative metrics exhibited unique trends, particularly for nonclinical articles, and may provide a complementary measure of radiology research impact compared to traditional citation counts.

Do Standard Bibliometric Measures Correlate with Academic Rank of Full-Time Pediatric Dentistry Faculty Members?

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess the relationship between quantitative measures of research productivity and academic rank for full-time pediatric dentistry faculty members in accredited U.S. and Canadian residency programs. For each pediatric dentist in the study group, academic rank and bibliometric factors derived from publicly available databases were recorded. Academic ranks were lecturer/instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. Bibliometric factors were mean total number of publications, mean total number of citations, maximum number of citations for a single work, and h-index (a measure of the impact of publications, determined by total number of publications h that had at least h citations each). The study sample was comprised of 267 pediatric dentists: 4% were lecturers/instructors, 44% were assistant professors, 30% were associate professors, and 22% were professors. The mean number of publications for the sample was 15.4±27.8. The mean number of citations was 218.4±482.0. The mean h-index was 4.9±6.6. The h-index was strongly correlated with academic rank (r=0.60, p=0.001). For this sample, an h-index of ≥3 was identified as a threshold for promotion to associate professor, and an h-index of ≥6 was identified as a threshold for promotion to professor. The h-index was strongly correlated with the academic rank of these pediatric dental faculty members, suggesting that this index may be considered a measure for promotion, along with a faculty member's quality and quantity of research, teaching, service, and clinical activities.

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.

Association of h-index of Editorial Board Members and Impact Factor among Radiology Journals

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

h-Index has been proposed as a useful bibliometric measure for quantifying research productivity. In this current study, we analyzed h-indices of editorial board members of Radiology journals and tested the hypothesis that editorial board members of Radiology journals with higher impact factors (IF) have higher h-indices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-two Radiology journals with IF >1 were included. Editorial board members were identified using the journals' websites. Editors' affiliations and research fields of interest were used to distinguish investigators with similar names. Bibliometric indices including number of publications, total citations, citations per publication, and h-index for each editorial board member were obtained using the Web of Science database. Chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to test for differences in bibliographic measures or demographics between groups.

RESULTS

Among the editorial boards of 62 journals, the median [interquartile range] board h-index was 26 [18, 31] and had 36 [17, 56] members. The median journal IF was 2.27 [1.74, 3.31]. We identified a total of 2204 distinct editors; they had a median [interquartile range] h-index of 23 [13, 35], 120 [58, 215] total publications, 1938 [682, 4634] total citations, and an average of 15.7 [9.96, 24.8] citations per publication. The boards of journals with IF above the median had significantly higher h-indices (P = .002), total publications (P = .01), and total and average citations (both any [P = .003, .009] and nonself-citations [P = .001, .002]) than journals below the median.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that board members of Radiology journals with higher IF have greater h-indices compared to lower IF journals.

Academic Productivity of Interventional Pulmonology Training Programs

RATIONALE

The Hirsch index (h-index) has been validated as a measure of academic productivity and may be an appropriate tool to assess the scholarly activity of interventional pulmonology (IP).

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to elucidate the factors associated with increasing h-index scores among IP training programs.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted of IP training programs across the United States and Canada. Data, including their respective h-index, number of publications, academic rank, geographic location, and possession of an advanced degree, were collected on IP faculty and fellows from 23 teaching institutions.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-three IP physicians (48 faculty, 45 fellows) in all were included in the study from 23 institutions with a total of 101 data points. The faculty h-index mean was 3.88. The proportion of faculty with an h-index greater than the mean value was increased significantly with higher academic rank (P < 0.0001). In addition, physicians holding an advanced degree beyond an M.D./D.O. had a significantly higher h-index than did those without (P = 0.0062).

CONCLUSIONS

For academic interventional pulmonologists, the h-index rises with increasing academic rank and possession of an advanced degree. The h-index for IP is roughly comparable to that for other surgical and procedural-based specialties.

Associations Between Academic Rank and Advanced Bibliometric Indices Among United States Academic Radiologists

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate associations between traditional and advanced bibliometric indices with academic rank for radiologists in the United States.

METHODS

Faculty web pages were searched to classify 538 members of the Association of University Radiologists as assistant (n = 212), associate (n = 128), or full (n = 198) professors. Radiologists' publication and citation records were extracted from Scopus to compute the following indices: publication count, citation count, h-index, i-10 index, h_c-index, m-quotient, e-index, and g-index. Analysis of variance, multivariable logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were performed.

RESULTS

All indices were significantly different among the three groups (P ≤.001), progressively increasing with increasing rank (eg, mean publication count of 17, 41, and 128 among assistant, associate, and full professors, respectively; mean citation count of 205, 687, and 3622, respectively; mean h-index of 5, 11, and 27, respectively). At multivariable analysis, the h-index (reflecting publications and citations) was a strong significant independent positive predictor of associate (β=+0.32, P <.001) or full professor (β=+0.26, P <.001) status, whereas the m-quotient (adjusted h-index that is greater for more rapid publication) was a strong significant independent negative predictor of associate (β=-1.87, P = .009) or full professor (β =-4.97, P <.001) status. The models exhibited moderate goodness-of-fit (r² = 0.534-0.655; P <.001). The model for predicting at least associate professor achieved area under the curve 0.876 (sensitivity 74.6%, specificity 88.8%). The model for predicting full professor achieved area under the curve 0.925 (sensitivity 85.5%, specificity 86.1%).

CONCLUSION

When controlling for the h-index, more rapid publication, as indicated by the m-quotient, was negatively associated with radiologists' academic rank, indicating the additional influence of career duration in promotions decisions.

The construct validity of theh-index

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to show how bibliometrics would benefit from a stronger programme of construct validity.

Design/methodology/approach

The value of the construct validity concept is demonstrated by applying this approach to the evaluation of theh-index, a widely used metric.

Findings

The paper demonstrates that theh-index comprehensively fails any test of construct validity. In simple terms, the metric does not measure what it purports to measure. This conclusion suggests that the current popularity of theh-index as a topic for bibliometric research represents wasted effort, which might have been avoided if researchers had adopted the approach suggested in this paper.

Research limitations/implications

This study is based on the analysis of a single bibliometric concept.

Practical implications

The conclusion that theh-index fails any test in terms of construct validity implies that the widespread use of this metric within the higher education sector as a management tool represents poor practice, and almost certainly results in the misallocation of resources.

Social implications

This paper suggests that the current enthusiasm for theh-index within the higher education sector is misplaced. The implication is that universities, grant funding bodies and faculty administrators should abandon the use of theh-index as a management tool. Such a change would have a significant effect on current hiring, promotion and tenure practices within the sector, as well as current attitudes towards the measurement of academic performance.

Originality/value

The originality of the paper lies in the systematic application of the concept of construct validity to bibliometric enquiry.

Gender Differences in Publication Productivity, Academic Rank, and Career Duration Among U.S. Academic Gastroenterology Faculty

PURPOSE

Female representation in academic medicine is increasing without proportional increases in female representation at senior ranks. The purpose of this study is to describe the gender representation in academic gastroenterology (GI) and compare publication productivity, academic rank, and career duration between male and female gastroenterologists.

METHOD

In 2014, the authors collected data including number of publications, career duration, h-index, and m-index for faculty members at 114 U.S. academic GI programs.

RESULTS

Of 2,440 academic faculty, 1,859 (76%) were men and 581 (24%) were women. Half (50%) of men held senior faculty position compared with 29% of women (P < .001). Compared with female faculty, male faculty had significantly (P < .001) longer careers (20 vs. 11 years), more publications (median 24 [0-949] vs. 9 [0-438]), and higher h-indices (8 vs. 4). Higher h-index correlated with higher academic rank (P < .001). The authors detected no difference in the h-index between men and women at the same rank for professor, associate professor, and instructor, nor any difference in the m-index between men and women (0.5 vs. 0.46, respectively, P = .214).

CONCLUSIONS

A gender gap exists in the number and proportion of women in academic GI; however, after correcting for career duration, productivity measures that consider quantity and impact are similar for male and female faculty. Women holding senior faculty positions are equally productive as their male counterparts. Early and continued career mentorship will likely lead to continued increases in the rise of women in academic rank.

Instructional Vignettes in Publication and Journalism Ethics in Radiology Research: Assessment via a Survey of Radiology Trainees

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to assess the potential usefulness of written instructional vignettes relating to publication and journalism ethics in radiology via a survey of radiology trainees.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature review was conducted to guide the development of vignettes, each describing a scenario relating to an ethical issue in research and publication, with subsequent commentary on the underlying ethical issue and potential approaches to its handling. Radiology trainees at a single institution were surveyed regarding the vignettes' perceived usefulness.

RESULTS

A total of 21 vignettes were prepared, addressing institutional review board and human subjects protection, authorship issues, usage of previous work, manuscript review, and other miscellaneous topics. Of the solicited trainees, 24.7% (16/65) completed the survey. On average among the vignettes, 94.0% of the participants found the vignette helpful; 19.9 received prior formal instruction on the issue during medical training; 40.0% received prior informal guidance from a research mentor; and 42.0% indicated that the issue had arisen in their own or a peer's prior research experience. The most common previously experienced specific issue was authorship order (93.8%). Free-text responses were largely favorable regarding the value of the vignettes, although also indicated numerous challenges in properly handling the ethical issues: impact of hierarchy, pressure to publish, internal politics, reluctance to conduct sensitive conversations with colleagues, and variability in journal and professional society policies.

CONCLUSION

Radiology trainees overall found the vignettes helpful, addressing commonly encountered topics for which formal and informal guidance were otherwise lacking. The vignettes are publicly available through the Association of University Radiologists (AUR) website and may foster greater insights by investigators into ethical aspects of the publication and journalism process, thus contributing to higher quality radiology research.

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.

Associations Between NIH Funding and Advanced Bibliometric Indices Among Radiological Investigators

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Whereas data support the h index (reflecting both publications and citations) as an indicator of academic productivity, other advanced bibliometric indices aiming to address shortcomings of the h index remain poorly studied. Our objective was to compare the associations between bibliometric indices and total National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding among investigators within U.S. academic radiology departments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

NIH grant funding amounts for 400 NIH-funded investigators within radiology departments were obtained from Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research. Investigators' publications and associated citations were identified using Scopus. Indices computed for each investigator included: publication count, citation count, h index, i-10 index, hc index (h index adjusted for recency of publications), m quotient (h index adjusted for career duration), and e index and g index (both account for highly cited articles). Spearman correlations were performed between indices and funding. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify significant independent predictors of funding.

RESULTS

For MD investigators: the indices exhibited no-to-weak correlations with funding (r = 0.173-0.387); m quotient exhibited the largest correlation and was the only significant (albeit weak) independent predictor of funding (P = 0.011). For PhD investigators: correlation with funding was weak for m quotient (r = 0.323), although moderate for other indices (r = 0.518-0.568); publication count exhibited highest correlation; publication count (P < 0.001) and hc index (P = 0.024) were significant independent predictors of funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Bibliometric indices were more strongly associated with grant funding for PhD than for MD radiology investigators, with publication count exhibiting the strongest association in the latter group. Time-weighted adjustments, as reflected by the m quotient and hc index, may improve efforts to predict funding using bibliometrics.

Most Common Publication Types in Radiology Journals:: What is the Level of Evidence?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the most common publication types in radiology journals, as well as temporal trends and association with citation frequency.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed was searched to extract all published articles having the following "Publication Type" indices: "validation studies," "meta-analysis," "clinical trial," "comparative study," "evaluation study," "guideline," "multicenter study," "randomized study," "review," "editorial," "case report," and "technical report." The percentage of articles within each category published within clinical radiology journals was computed. Normalized percentages for each category were also computed on an annual basis. Citation counts within a 2-year window following publication were obtained using Web of Science. Overall trends were assessed.

RESULTS

Publication types with the highest fraction in radiology journals were technical reports, evaluation studies, and case reports (4.8% to 5.8%). Publication types with the lowest fraction in radiology journals were randomized trials, multicenter studies, and meta-analyses (0.8% to 1.5%). Case reports showed a significant decrease since 1999, with accelerating decline since 2007 (P = 0.002). Publication types with highest citation counts were meta-analyses, guidelines, and multicenter studies (8.1 ± 10.7 to 12.9 ± 5.1). Publication types with lowest citation counts were case reports, editorials, and technical reports (1.4 ± 2.4 to 2.9 ± 4.3). The representation in radiology journals and citation frequency of the publication types showed weak inverse correlation (r = -0.372).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiology journals have historically had relatively greater representation of less frequently cited publication types. Various strategies, including methodological training, multidisciplinary collaboration, national support networks, as well as encouragement of higher level of evidence by funding agencies and radiology journals themselves, are warranted to improve the impact of radiological research.

Gender Comparison of Scholarly Production in the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Using the Hirsch Index

OBJECTIVE

Despite an increase in the proportion of female medical school graduates, the number of women in orthopedic surgery remains low. To examine the presence of gender disparities in scholarly production, the authors used the Hirsch index (h-index) to assess members of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), a well-defined subspecialty of orthopedic surgery.

DESIGN

Using the MSTS Membership Directory, the authors assessed those practicing at an academic institution in the United States. Members׳ sex and rank was obtained from their department's website, and their h-index and years since initial publication was collected from the Scopus database.

SETTING

Research was performed at New Jersey Medical School, an institution, using online databases.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 247 members of the MSTS were eligible, of whom 125 practiced at a US academic medical center and were included in the study.

RESULTS

The MSTS is composed of 247 members, 28 (11%) of whom are women. Within US academic medical centers, there are 125 members, including 17 (14%) women. Mean h-indices increased with rising academic rank from 5.42 for assistant professors to 19.28 for professors. Publication ranges showed an increase from 11.03 years for assistant professors to 29.52 years for professors. The h-index and publication years of chairpersons were nearly equal to those of professors. Using the h-index, it was found that men outproduce women-13.4:7.9. Men outnumber women at every rank, increasingly so at higher ranks. The authors found that there was a significant difference in productivity between ranks (p < 0.01) and between sexes (p = 0.035), but not between sexes at the assistant professor, associate professor, or professor levels (p = 0.147, 0.581, and 0.263, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The h-index shows differing production among the sexes and ranks in the MSTS. No significant difference exists between the sexes when members are organized by academic title.

Factors affecting scientific productivity of German oral-maxillofacial surgery training centers: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To identify factors associated with scientific productivity (SP) of German oral-maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) training centers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was composed of a set of data from German OMFS training centers. A total of eight predictor variables were grouped into demographic, structural, and personal categories. The outcome variables were average publications in 2013 per senior staff, and percentage of OMFS trainees with >1 publications. Descriptive and univariate statistics were computed using P < 0.05.

RESULTS

The sample included outputs from 62 OMFS departments (34 [54.8 %] university-based; 46 [74.2 %] in large cities). Average publications were 2.4 ± 3 per senior staff (range, 0-27), and 160 trainees (31.7 %) published >1 papers. The number of publications and productive trainees was not linked to department name and number of female senior staffs, but publication count was significantly increased when the hospital was in a metropolis (P = 0.018) or university-based (P < 0.0001), the OMFS' chairperson and >3 staffs within the department had a postdoctoral degree (German "Habilitation") (P = 0.013 and <0.0001), and the chairperson had h-index >10 or the first/last authorship in 2013 (P < 0.0001). Female senior surgeons were less scientifically productive than the male ones (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

SP of German OMFS training centers is greatly different across the country and influenced by city size, university base, educational backgrounds, and research activities of chairpersons and senior staffs. This helps students, trainees, and young surgeons to reach the career choice that is personally appropriate. The involved organizations may need to encourage research output of less productive surgeons/centers. Increasing postdoctoral-qualified staffs will increase SP of the department.

Scholarly Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding of Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research Grant Recipients

Background:

The Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) grant program provides fellows and junior faculty members with grant support to stimulate their careers. The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of recipients of FAER grants since 1987.

Methods:

Recipients were identified in the FAER alumni database. Each recipient’s affiliation was identified using an Internet search (keyword “anesthesiology”). The duration of activity, publications, publication rate, citations, citation rate, h-index, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for each recipient were obtained using the Scopus® (Elsevier, USA) and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools® (National Institutes of Health, USA) databases.

Results:

Three hundred ninety-seven individuals who received 430 FAER grants were analyzed, 79.1% of whom currently hold full-time academic appointments. Recipients published 19,647 papers with 548,563 citations and received 391 NIH grants totaling $448.44 million. Publications, citations, h-index, the number of NIH grants, and amount of support were dependent on academic rank and years of activity (P &lt; 0.0001). Recipients who acquired NIH grants (40.3%) had greater scholarly output than those who did not. Recipients with more publications were also more likely to secure NIH grants. Women had fewer publications and lower h-index than men, but there were no gender-based differences in NIH funding. Scholarly output was similar in recipients with MD and PhD degrees versus those with MD degrees alone, but recipients with MD and PhD degrees were more likely to receive NIH funding than those with MDs alone.

Conclusion:

Most FAER alumni remain in academic anesthesiology and have established a consistent record of scholarly output that appears to exceed reported productivity for average faculty members identified in previous studies.