Factors predictive of an academic otolaryngologist's scholarly impact

Retractions in Otolaryngology Publications

Objective

To characterize trends in otolaryngology (ear, nose, and throat [ENT]) retractions, identify underlying causes, and compare retraction rates with similar specialties.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A scoping review of retracted articles published from January 1, 1974, through December 31, 2023, was carried out. Retraction data were obtained from the Crossref/Retraction Watch database and corresponding abstracts were retrieved from PubMed. Publication data were obtained from Scopus. All retracted articles related to ENT were identified. Articles from neurosurgery and ophthalmology were similarly retrieved for comparison. Articles withdrawn for routine updates, expressions of concern, reinstatements, and corrections were excluded. The data were obtained on December 3, 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were annual retraction rate (proportion of retracted articles per total published articles) and reasons for retraction (categorized as intentional data misconduct, intentional procedural misconduct, unintentional data errors, unintentional procedural errors, or unknown). Secondary measures included time from publication to retraction and comparisons with neurosurgery and ophthalmology retraction rates.

Results

Of 481 215 ENT articles, 471 (0.10%) were retracted. Retractions increased over time, peaking in 2022 with a retraction rate of 0.42%. Among retracted ENT articles, the most common reasons were intentional data misconduct (233 [49.50%]) and intentional procedural misconduct (210 [44.60%]). Articles with first authors from China accounted for the largest share (243 [51.60%]) of these retractions. Basic science head and neck cancer research represented the largest subspecialty category (161 [34.20%]). The median (IQR) time to retraction was 21.8 (10.8-55.3) months.

Conclusions and Relevance

This analysis found that retractions in ENT literature have increased over 5 decades, predominantly driven by intentional misconduct. These findings highlight the need for enhanced oversight, training, and editorial vigilance to maintain the integrity of ENT research and protect patient welfare.

Social network analysis as a new tool to measure academic impact of physicians

Introduction

H-index is a widely used metric quantifying a researcher's productivity and impact based on an author's publications and citations. Though convenient to calculate, h-index fails to incorporate collaborations and interrelationships between physicians into its assessment of academic impact, leading to limited insight into grouped networks. We present social network analysis as a tool to measure relationships between physicians and quantify their academic impact.

Methods

A bibliometric multicenter analysis was conducted on physician faculty from 129 US ACGME accredited otolaryngology programs who have publications with a physician co-author in the field. Using web searches, 2494 physician faculty were identified. Scopus IDs, h-indices, and publication data for these physicians were identified using multiple Elsevier APIs queried in December 2023. Publications with multiple otolaryngology physician co-authors were included. Network and sub network maps were generated using Gephi and analyzed with custom R scripts. Centrality measures (degree, PageRank, betweenness centralities) quantified collaboration propensity. Non-parametric correlation analysis between centrality measures and h-index was conducted. Sankey diagrams were plotted using ggplot2.

Results

A co-authorship network of 2259 physicians was constructed. Physicians were visualized as nodes with collaborations as links. Centrality measures correlated strongly with h-index (h-index vs. degree centrality: r 2 = 0.62, h-index vs. PageRank: r 2 = 0.55, h-index vs. betweenness centrality: r 2 = 0.55; p < .0001). Analysis revealed novel insights into physician network structure, identifying 14 communities primarily populated by single subspecialties with varied node density.

Conclusion

Social network analysis showed moderate correlation between social connectedness measures and h-index, supporting its use in measuring academic impact. In otolaryngology, collaborative interactions within the academic community are strongly shaped by sub-specialty affiliation and academic institution.

A Comprehensive Analysis of Academic Attributes of the Presidents of the North American Skull Base Society

Objectives  Our objective was to elucidate the demographic, academic, and career attributes of North American Skull Base Society (NASBS) presidents and determine how leadership of this society has changed over time. Design  Thirty-one NASBS presidents have served between 1990 and 2021. Demographic and scholarly variables were recorded from publicly available sources. To determine how trends in NASBS presidents have changed over time, linear and logistic regressions were conducted on continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Setting  Virtual setting was used for this study. Participants  There were no active participants in the study. Main Outcome Measures  Academic metrics of NASBS presidents were the main outcome measure. Results  NASBS presidents had a mean age of 53.3 ± 6.1 years at election and were all male. The most common institution at which former presidents trained ( n  = 4) and practiced ( n  = 3) was the University of Pittsburgh. Otolaryngologists comprised 41.9% ( n  = 13) of the cohort, neurosurgeons made up 38.8% ( n  = 12), and the remaining 19.3% ( n  = 6) were from other specialties. NASBS presidents from neurosurgery ( p  = 0.033) and other specialties ( p  = 0.014) were more likely to hold the rank of chair compared with those from otolaryngology. Over time, there has been a linear increase in years of research experience at the time of election ( p  = 0.048). There remains a lack of diversity of gender and race. Conclusion  NASBS presidents have demonstrated increased research activity over time, favoring long-term academic careers. Knowledge of these trends and attributes, which demonstrate an increase in skull base literature, growth of the NASBS, and a need for increased diversity in the field, is important for stewarding the future of the NASBS and promoting equity.

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.

#OtoTwitter: The Top 75 Twitter Influencers in Otolaryngology and Association With Academic Impact

OBJECTIVES

Social media has enabled discussion of relevant topics within otolaryngology. With increasing academic discourse occurring on virtual platforms, it is important to examine who is influencing these discussions. This study thus aims to: (1) identify the top Twitter influencers in otolaryngology and (2) assess the relationship between Twitter influence and academic impact.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING

Twitter.

METHODS

The Right Relevance program was used to identify and rank the top 75 Twitter influencers, excluding organizations, according to the search terms "otolaryngology," "head and neck surgery," "ear nose throat," "rhinology," "head and neck," "laryngology," "facial plastics," and "otology." Demographic data and h-index were collected for each influencer. Correlational analyzes were performed to assess the relationships between Twitter rank and geographic location, sex, subspecialty, and h-index.

RESULTS

The majority of the top 75 influencers were otolaryngologists (87%), female (68%), and located in the United States (61%). General otolaryngology (n = 20, 31%) was more well-represented than any individual subspecialty including facial plastics (n = 10, 15%), rhinology (n = 10, 15%), and neurotology (n = 9, 14%). There was a significant relationship between Twitter rank and h-index (Spearman ρ value of -0.32; 95% confidence interval: -0.51 to -0.01; P = .006). Twitter rank was not significantly correlated with subspecialty, sex, or geographic location (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The majority of Twitter influencers within otolaryngology were otolaryngologists, female, and located in the United States. Social media influence is positively associated with academic impact among otolaryngologists.

An Otolaryngologist's Guide to Understanding the H-index and How It Could Affect Your Future Career

Objectives

The h-index is a measure of research output and contribution that shows strong correlation with academic promotion in medicine. The purpose of this article is to clearly explain how h-index scores are calculated and how otolaryngologists can effectively and advantageously use these scores for their career development.

Data Sources

PubMed.

Review Methods

We performed an up-to-date PubMed literature review describing the design of the h-index and how to use it effectively along with its role in academic medicine, including otolaryngology.

Conclusions

H-index scores are used as a metric for scientific output that considers the number of publications and the number of times each is cited. Search engines can automatically calculate h-index scores for one's work. Studies also revealed significant positive correlations that the h-index has from fellowship involvement, which could be beneficial for career advancement in academic medicine.

Implications for Practice

Aspiring academic otolaryngologists should create a research profile to link and calculate the h-index for publications, submit to well-read high-impact journals for increased viewership and citations, and expand on foundational and personal research topics. Future studies should evaluate faculty and resident awareness of h-indices in the otolaryngology department to see how we can further address any underlying barriers. Otolaryngologists with the knowledge and tools necessary to maximize h-index scores and produce high-quality research in modern-day medicine not only provide potential advantages in career development but also bring significant contribution to the field of otolaryngology and patient care.