Evaluation of Research Productivity among Academic Vitreoretinal Surgeons Using the Relative Citation Ratio

Relative Citation Ratio Among Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgeons: Examining the Factors Associated With Higher Scores

INTRODUCTION

Academic scholarship is often valued by clinicians, peers, and intuitions. Quantifying the effect of research publications is challenging. Various metrics have been used to assess this. This study aimed to examine the relatively new research metric, relative citation ratio (RCR), introduced by the National Institutes of Health, for pediatric orthopaedic surgeons to establish the benchmarking of research effect within the field and understand the distribution and basis for the use of this metric among pediatric orthopaedic surgeons.

METHODS

The RCR indices were assessed for members of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America using the iCite online web service. The mean RCR (mRCR, the yearly average RCR) and weighted RCR (wRCR, the cumulative RCR score) were assessed for each member. This information was used to perform univariate and two multivariate ordinary least squares regressions for the two metrics. Independent variables were physician sex, years since receiving national provider identifier, MD versus DO degree, whether the physician had a PhD, and geographic region of practice (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, West, and Southwest).

RESULTS

A total of 770 pediatric orthopaedic physicians were identified. The median [interquartile range] wRCR was 15.6 [4.9 to 54.2], and median mRCR was 1.4 [1.0 to 1.9]. Multivariable squares regression for wRCR showed an independently increased wRCR associated with male sex (39.11), PhD (23.32), years since receiving national provider identifier (4.51), and northeast region (48.44). However, these trends were not notable for mRCR where only southeast region was notable.

CONCLUSION

Although each has its caveats, both mRCR and wRCR have a place in evaluating an author's publication history and other research metrics. Furthermore, it is important to know the overall research metrics within a field to allow for inter- and intraspecialty comparisons. Understanding RCR is helpful because it allows for new comparisons within and across fields and career lengths.

Evaluation of Research Productivity among Academic Glaucoma Specialists Using the Relative Citation Ratio

PURPOSE

To provide relative citation ratio (RCR) benchmark data for the field of glaucoma.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis.

SUBJECTS

Fellowship-trained glaucoma faculty at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited institutions.

METHODS

Glaucoma faculty were individually indexed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) iCite website. Publication count, mean RCR score, and weighted RCR score were collected for each author between May and August 2023 and included PubMed-listed articles from 1980 to 2023. Data were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total number of publications, mean RCR value, and weighted RCR value.

RESULTS

Five hundred twenty-six academic glaucoma specialists from 113 institutions were indexed. These physicians produced highly impactful research with a median publication count of 13 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-38), median RCR of 1.41 (IQR 0.97-1.98), and median weighted RCR of 16.89 (4.80-63.39). Academic rank, career duration, and having a PhD were associated with increased publication count, mean RCR, and weighted RCR. Publication count and weighted RCR differed significantly by sex; however, no difference was observed with mean RCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Current academic glaucoma specialists have high mean RCR values relative to the NIH standard RCR value of 1. This benchmark data serve as a more accurate gauge of research impact within the glaucoma community and can be used to inform self, institutional, and departmental evaluations. Additionally, the mean RCR may provide an accurate metric for quantifying research productivity among historically underrepresented groups that are disadvantaged by time-dependent factors such as number of publications.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Evaluation of Research Productivity Among Academic Cornea, External Diseases, and Refractive Surgery Ophthalmologists Using the Relative Citation Ratio

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to provide relative citation ratio (RCR) benchmark data for cornea and external diseases specialists.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis.

SUBJECTS

Subjects included were fellowship-trained cornea and external diseases faculty at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited institutions in the United States.

METHODS

Academic specialists were indexed using the National Institutes of Health iCite Web site. Publication count, mean RCR score, and weighted RCR score were obtained between October 2022 and January 2023 by examining PubMed-listed publications from 1980 to 2022. Data were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were publication count, mean RCR value, and weighted RCR value.

RESULTS

The cohort included 602 specialists from 112 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited institutions. These clinician-scientists produced highly impactful research with a median publication count of 15 (interquartile ranges 4-41), median RCR of 1.4 (interquartile ranges 0.91-1.88), and median-weighted RCR of 20.28 (5.3-66.69). Both academic rank and career length were associated with greater publication count and RCR values. Male sex was also associated with greater publications counts and RCR scores compared with female faculty. Acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy was associated with greater publication counts and weighted RCR scores but no difference in mean RCR scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Academic cornea and external diseases specialists conduct high-impact research, with a median RCR of 1.4, exceeding the NIH standard value of 1. These data provide RCR benchmark data for the field to inform self, institutional, and departmental evaluations. These results also highlight a significant gender disparity in the field necessitating efforts to increase female representation and ensure equal opportunities.

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.

The status of women in academic ophthalmology: Authorship of papers, presentations, and academic promotions

As the field of ophthalmology has evolved in the last several decades, so has the gender distribution of ophthalmologists. We conducted a narrative review to further characterise the status of women in the realm of publication, presentations, editorial positions, grants, academic promotion, and financial compensation. While the proportion of women publishing, presenting, and filling academic and editorial roles has increased over time, it still does not match that of men. Women are more likely to be first authors instead of senior authors, have lower average h-indices, and are awarded fewer grants. The magnitude of some of these differences is smaller when adjusted for women's shorter career duration on average. Despite increased representation of women in ophthalmology, women continue to receive less compensation for the same work. This review highlights that more can be done to improve gender parity in ophthalmology.