Academic productivity in physical medicine and rehabilitation

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.

Research Performances of Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Members

INTRODUCTION

Scientometric analysis of academic institutions provides useful information for policy makers, international and national organizations to invest in the research fields of the institutions to gain more outputs with less cost. The objectives of this work were to report a scientometric analysis of Islamic states considering a number of indicators.

METHODS

The number of articles and patents published by members of organization of Islamic conference were extracted from Scopus(TM) along with the top journals, authors, document type, universities, language of the publications and subjects.

RESULTS

The analyses of data revealed that Turkey is the leading country followed by Iran, Egypt, Malaysia and Nigeria when total numbers of indexed articles in Scopus(TM) are considered. When the articles of 2006-2010 are considered the ranks are Turkey, Iran, Malaysia, Egypt and Pakistan.

CONCLUSION

the increased pattern was observed for scientific performances of OIC members however, more investments are required to fill the gap between OIC members and the leading countries.

How has healthcare research performance been assessed?: a systematic review

Objectives Healthcare research performance is increasingly assessed through research indicators. We performed a systematic review to identify the indicators that have been used to measure healthcare research performance. We evaluated their feasibility, validity, reliability and acceptability; and finally assessed the utility of these indicators in terms of measuring performance in individuals, specialties, institutions and countries. Design A systematic review was performed by searching EMBASE, PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases between 1950 and September 2010. Setting Studies of healthcare research were appraised. Healthcare was defined as the prevention, treatment and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical wellbeing through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions. Participants All original studies that evaluated research performance indicators in healthcare were included. Main outcome measures Healthcare research indicators, data sources, study characteristics, results and limitations for each study were studied. Results The most common research performance indicators identified in 50 studies were: number of publications (n = 38), number of citations (n = 27), Impact Factor (n = 15), research funding (n = 10), degree of co-authorship (n = 9), and h index (n = 5). There was limited investigation of feasibility, validity, reliability and acceptability, although the utility of these indicators was adequately described. Conclusion Currently, there is only limited evidence to assess the value of healthcare research performance indicators. Further studies are required to define the application of these indicators through a balanced approach for quality and innovation. The ultimate aim of utilizing healthcare research indicators is to create a culture of measuring research performance to support the translation of research into greater societal and economic impact.

Research activities and perspectives of individuals completing a research enrichment program for physiatrists

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the research activity and perspectives, and the predictors and barriers to research activity, in a cohort of individuals completing a research enrichment program for physiatrists.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study design was utilized. Data collection was accomplished with a mailed survey, which was sent to 68 individuals who had completed the Research Enrichment Program for Physiatrists between 1991 and 1998. Data analysis was performed using both descriptive and inferential statistical methods.

RESULTS

Eighty-five percent (58 of 68) of surveys were completed and returned. The majority of respondents were in academic-based practice (83%) at the assistant professor level (59%). Sixty-nine percent of the group reported spending no time in research, and 64% reported having no "protected" time for research. The mean number of peer-reviewed journal publications was 2.4, and the average number of research grants was 1.6, with 57% of the cohort reporting no grant funding. Departmental PhD, statistical, and secretarial support for research were all noted to be inadequate or not available for >50% of the cohort. High demand for clinical productivity, lack of protected research time, and lack of research funding were all identified as major barriers to research activity. Cluster analysis found greater research time and support to be associated with measures of research productivity.

CONCLUSION

Long-term research success seems to require ongoing support, funding, and mentorship at the departmental and institutional level. Despite adequate training and motivation for research, research support was perceived as inadequate for many Research Enrichment Program graduates.

Physiatric research fellows' perceptions of the quality of their training

A survey was conducted to evaluate the physiatric research fellowship training. A 22-item questionnaire was sent to the 42 identified physiatrists who had completed at least a 1-yr research fellowship. Twenty-nine of these individuals (69%) responded. The physiatrists, all of whom have completed their research fellowships, uniformly cited competent faculty research mentors as being critical, even if they were not in the same department. Having protected research time as well as a research didactic program and journal club were highly rated issues. The trainees preferred a 2-yr fellowship that also stressed initiation of their own research, grant writing and management experience, and first authorship on research papers. We conclude that the majority of the research fellows agree on what are important issues with respect to their training.

Development of an academic productivity scale for departments of physical medicine and rehabilitation

OBJECTIVE

To determine which factors related to departments of physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) might contribute to the academic productivity of members of the teaching staff of those departments, and to develop an instrument that measures them.

DESIGN

Prospective, inception cohort.

SETTING

University medical center, academic PM&R departments.

PARTICIPANTS

PM&R academic departments.

INTERVENTION

Over a 6-year period, seven PM&R departments volunteered to use this instrument to measure academic productivity at 2-year intervals. Rasch analysis was applied to the generated data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Measurable items that were included in questions of the scale fell into six categories: research funding and/or experience; scholarly productivity; equipment and facilities; quality of the training program for resident physicians; continuing education efforts in research methodologies and professional organizational participation; and departmental leadership. Rasch analysis was applied to evaluate a new outcome instrument to measure academic productivity in PM&R departments.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight of the original 42 questions survived the Rasch analysis and were retained. Questions were dropped either because they did not fit the Rasch analysis (4 of 42 questions) or because application of the Rasch analysis demonstrated that they were inappropriately or outstandingly easy (10 of 42 were inappropriately or outstandingly easy).

CONCLUSION

This shortened instrument of 28 questions fits the Rasch analysis, has questions that evently range from easy to very difficult, and addresses six measurable categories that are correlates of PM&R departmental influences on the academic productivity of the PM&R teaching staff.

Publishing characteristics of chairpersons of physical medicine and rehabilitation departments

Previous studies note that specific factors intrinsic to an academic department of physical medicine and rehabilitation influence the academic productivity of individual faculty members. To determine whether one of these factors is related to the productivity of departmental chairpersons, this issue was studied for the period from 1983 to 1993. The productivity of chairpersons serving 4 or more consecutive years in the same department significantly declined. Moreover, the productivity of long-term chairpersons (greater than 10 years) was significantly below that of the group of high-frequency publishing chairpersons. Departments with long-term chairpersons also had fewer publications than departments with high-frequency publishing chairpersons. The academic productivity of the chairperson is a factor likely to influence the productivity of the department.