The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation

[Motivation and success factors in radiological research in Germany - results of a survey by the Methodology and Research Working Group of the German Radiological Society]

Investigation of motivation and identification of success factors in radiology research in Germany.Using a German online survey (54 questions, period: 3.5 months), demographic aspects, intrinsic and extrinsic success characteristics, as well as personal and organizational success factors were surveyed based on a career success model. The survey results were reported descriptively. The correlations between success factors and success characteristics were examined using linear, binary-logistic, and multinomial regression models.176 people (164 academically active, 10 not academically active) answered the survey. Most participants (80%, 139/174) worked at a university hospital. 32% had privatdozent or professor as their highest academic title (56/173). The researchers' main motivation was intrinsic interest in research (55%, 89/163), followed by a desire to increase their own career opportunities (25%, 41/163). The following were identified as factors for intrinsic success: i) support from department management (estimate=β=0.26, p<0.001), ii) good work-life balance (β=0.37, p<0.001), and iii) the willingness to pursue science even after reaching the career goal (β=0.16, p<0.016). Relevant factors for extrinsic scientific success were mentoring, protected research time, and activities in professional societies.Researchers in German radiology are mainly intrinsically motivated. Factors known from the literature that determine intrinsic and extrinsic scientific success were confirmed in this study. Knowledge of these factors allows targeted systematic support and could thus increase scientific success in German radiology. · Main motivation for German radiology research is intrinsic interest, followed by career opportunities.. · Factors for intrinsic scientific success are good work-life balance and support by department management.. · Factors for extrinsic scientific success are mentoring, activities in professional societies, and protected research time.. · Wegner F, Heinrichs H, Stahlmann K et al. Motivation and success factors in radiological research in Germany - results of a survey by the Methodology and Research Working Group of the German Radiological Society. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2025; 197: 424-435.

Italy's excellence in research

We analyze excellence in research carried out in Italy using the Highly Ranked Scholars (HRS) ranking of the top 0.05 % of all >30 million scholars. Published by research database ScholarGPS, the ranking is based on classification of over 140 million scholarly publications (weighting each publication and citation by the number of authors, and excluding self-citations). We investigate the outcomes of both prior five-year (2018-2022) and lifetime rankings. Results are informative in many aspects, including in comparison to other nations. The critical analysis of the results may inform policy efforts aimed at opening up a positive long-term economic development perspective for Italy. The analysis may also inform research policy efforts in other countries aimed at connecting research with economic and societal development.

Scholarly impact of student authorship in urology research

BACKGROUND

H-index is an indicator of research productivity considered in faculty promotion. We examine trends in female authorship and effect of student authorship on H-index of principal investigators (PI).

METHODS

Author gender, degree, designation as student, PI, or other, were recorded from Journal of Endourology from 2011 to 2020. PI Scopus H-index was recorded. PIs were classified into having student authors (SA) or not (nSA). Analysis conducted with IBM SPSS.

RESULTS

Of 819 total articles, 26 ​% had SA. Articles with SAs increased from 22.2 ​% in 2011 to 31.1 ​% in 2020 (p for trend<0.01). There was an increasing trend in female authorship overall (R2 ​= ​0.84). PIs with SA had a significantly higher mean H-index than those without, across all years (SA ​= ​30.91, nSA ​= ​27.45, p ​= ​0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Student authorship is increasing and positively benefits PI H-index. Female authorship is increasing overall within urology. Encouraging mentorship and student research can enhance and support female student interest in urology.

The increasing authorship trend in neuroscience: A scientometric analysis across 11 countries

Previous studies have demonstrated an increasing trend of the number of authors across various fields over the years. This trend has been attributed to the necessity for larger collaborations and, at times, to ethical issues regarding authorship attribution. Our study focuses on the evolution of authorship trends in the field of Neuroscience. We conducted our analysis based on a dataset containing 580,782 neuroscience publications produced from 2000 to 2022, focusing on the publications within the Group of ten (G10) countries. Using a matrix-based methodology, we extracted and analyzed the average number of authors per country. Our findings reveal a consistent rise in authorship across all G10 countries over the past two decades. Italy emerged with the highest average number of authors, while France stood out for experiencing the most significant increase, particularly in the last decade. The countries with the lowest number of authors per publication were the USA, UK and Canada. Differences between countries could result from variations in the size of collaboration between researchers in different countries. Additionally, these differences may depend on utilitarian considerations aimed at receiving higher scores in the individual evaluation of their own work. We propose that a normalization procedure for the number of authors should be implemented to ensure a fair evaluation of researchers.

Underrepresented minority faculty in the USA face a double standard in promotion and tenure decisions

Underrepresented minority (URM) faculty face challenges in many domains of academia, from university admissions to grant applications. We examine whether this translates to promotion and tenure (P&T) decisions. Data from five US universities on 1,571 faculty members' P&T decisions show that URM faculty received 7% more negative votes and were 44% less likely to receive unanimous votes from P&T committees. A double standard in how scholarly productivity is rewarded is also observed, with below-average h-indexes being judged more harshly for URM faculty than for non-URM faculty. This relationship is amplified for faculty with intersectional backgrounds, especially URM women. The differential treatment of URM women was mitigated when external reviewers highlighted candidates' scholarship more in their review letters. In sum, the results support the double standard hypothesis and provide evidence that different outcomes in P&T decision-making processes contribute to the sustained underrepresentation of URM faculty in tenured faculty positions.

Modernizing authorship criteria and transparency practices to facilitate open and equitable team science

Background: The rapid acceleration of authorship inflation-increasing numbers of authors per publication in collaborative research-has rendered the traditional "substantial contributions" criterion for authorship and the lack of transparency in author contributions increasingly problematic.Methods and results: To address these challenges, a revamped approach to authorship is proposed, replacing the rigid requirement of "substantial contributions" with a more flexible, project-specific criterion of "sufficient contributions," as determined and justified by the authors for each project. This change more accurately reflects and accommodates the proliferation of scientific collaboration ("team science" or "group science"). It broadens the scope and granularity of roles deserving of authorship by integrating the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) and Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) systems. It mandates in-text documentation of who did what (e.g., who collected what data) and moves beyond the typical binary (all-or-none) classification by assigning a gradated contribution level to each author for each role. Contributions can be denoted using an ordinal scale-either coarse (e.g., lead, equal, and supporting) or fine-grained (e.g., minimal, slight, moderate, substantial, extensive, and full). To support the implementation of the revamped approach, an authorship policy template is provided.Conclusions: Adopting proportional, role-specific credit allocation and explicit documentation of contributions fosters a more transparent, equitable, and trustworthy scientific environment.

Global trends and current status of amputation: Bibliometrics and visual analysis of publications from 1999 to 2021

OBJECTIVE

To generalize the research status, hotspots, and development trends of amputation-related research.

METHODS

The data from 1999 to 2021 were collected from the Web of Science core collection database, and analyzed through bibliometrics software (CiteSpace and VOSviewer) for the dual-map overlay of journals, top 25 references with the strongest citation bursts, top 25 keywords with the strongest citation bursts, and timeline of keywords.

RESULTS

A total of 8,588 literature studies were involved in this study. The United States ranks the first in terms of H-index, total number of publications, and total citations. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and University of Washington are the major contributors to amputation. Prosthetics and Orthotics International , Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , and Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development are the main publication channels for articles related to amputation. Geertzen JHB, Czerniecki J, and Dijkstra PU are major contributors to amputation. In addition, research on limb salvage treatment and surgical methods for amputation will become a hotspot in the future.

CONCLUSION

The total number of publications for amputation has generally increased from 1999 to 2021. Our study is beneficial for scientists to specify the research hotspot and development direction of amputation.

Exploring Impact and Variability of Research Productivity Among Academic Orthopaedic Leaders

Introduction

Assessing scholarly contributions in academic orthopaedic surgery remains challenging, despite the importance of publication productivity in evaluating academic leaders. The Hirsch (h)-index and its derivative, the m-index, offer objective measures to compare and evaluate publication productivity. The primary aims of this study were to compare h- and m-indices of department chairs and residency program directors of orthopaedic training programs in the United States and assess the association between h-index and program rank.

Methods

A publicly available Doximity report was used to identify and rank orthopaedic surgery residency programs in the United States. Internet-based searches of institution-specific websites were performed to confirm current department chairs and residency program directors as of January 2024. H-index data were collected from a publicly available database known as Scopus. The m-index was calculated as the quotient of h-index and years in practice. Gender and years in practice were obtained through available biographies on institution-specific websites.

Results

Department chairs had significantly higher h- and m-indices at both the career and 5-year time intervals compared with program directors. Upon subgroup analysis, department chairs and program directors at top-10 ranked programs had significantly higher h- and m-indices compared with the entire population of department chairs and program directors. Linear regression analyses demonstrated a direct linear association between department chair/program director h- and m-indices and program rank.

Conclusions

Publication productivity was higher for department chairs than residency program directors. Orthopaedic leaders at top-10 institutions had higher publication productivity compared with those at institutions outside of the top 10, per Doximity rankings. Finally, there is substantial variation in publication productivity of orthopaedic surgeons in leadership roles at academic institutions in the United States.

Clinical Relevance

This study highlights the publication productivity of orthopaedic surgery department chairs and residency program directors and describes the linear association between publication productivity of academic orthopaedic leaders and program rank. This information can be utilized by those interested in learning more about the publication productivity among academic orthopaedic surgeons across different institutions and can assist those who are involved in the hiring and promotion process at these academic institutions.

Analysis of the citation impact of Brazilian researchers in oral pathology and oral medicine over two decades

BACKGROUND

Brazilian Oral Pathology (OP) and Oral Medicine (OM) have gained significant international recognition. However, no study has yet evaluated the impact of citations in scientific publications. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the impact of citations from Brazilian researchers in OP and OM over the last two decades.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study involving 50 researchers linked to postgraduate programs in OP/OM. Data collected from each professional's Lattes curriculum included gender, academic affiliation, the corporate category of the institution, and location. The number of papers published and citations received between 2004 to 2013 and 2014 to 2023 was also collected from the Web of Science database.

RESULTS

Most researchers were male (56%) and from public institutions (90%), mainly in the Southeast region (60%). Over two decades, they collectively published 8,033 scientific articles, with significant growth (p<0.001) from to 2004-2013 to 2014-2023. While the average citations per researcher did not differ significantly between 2004-2013 and 2014-2023 (p=0.538), there was a notable 67.67% increase in citations in the last decade.

CONCLUSIONS

Brazilian researchers in the areas of OP and OM have demonstrated a significant academic impact over the past two decades, with a marked increase in publications and citations over the last ten years. This highlights the contribution of Brazilians to the global scientific community in these areas.

MAATrica: a measure for assessing consistency and methods in medicinal and nutraceutical chemistry papers

The growing number of scientific papers and document sources underscores the need for methods capable of evaluating the quality of publications. Researchers who are looking for relevant papers for their studies need ways to assess the scientific value of these documents. One approach involves using semantic search engines that can automatically extract important knowledge from the growing body of text. In this study, we introduce a new metric called "MAATrica," which serves as the foundation for an innovative method designed to evaluate research papers. MAATrica offers a new way to analyze and categorize text, focusing on the consistency of research documents in the life sciences, particularly in the fields of medicinal and nutraceutical chemistry. This method utilizes semantic descriptions to cover in silico experiments, as well as in vitro and in vivo essays. Created to aid in evaluation processes like peer review, MAATrica uses toolkits and semantic applications to build the proposed measure, identify scientific entities, and gather information. We have applied MAATrica to roughly 90,000 papers and present our findings here.

Using Bibliometric Analysis to Map the Impact of a Simulation Program's Published Scholarly Works

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Bibliometrics quantitatively evaluates the targeted literature sources and can help define research and scholarly publications' impact and demonstrate connections for authors, departments, or universities. This article presents a methodology for simulation programs to evaluate their influence in terms of both impact and scope of their published simulation-based healthcare scholarly output. Using the authors' home university and healthcare system as an example, the article outlines a methodology to map research and scholarly works networks within the systems, identify and map connections outside the system, and quantifiably score the overall impact of the simulation program's scholarly output using a common scoring metric, the h-index. This generates an objective measure of impact, rather than a subjective opinion of an organization's research and scholarly impact. The combination of an institutional h-index with mapping of simulation-based healthcare scholarly output provides a full, objective description of the institution's output and provides a benchmark for other simulation programs for comparison.

Demographics and Characteristics of US-Based Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery Fellowship Program Directors: A 2023 Descriptive Analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Fellowship program directors (FPDs) play an important role in the development of fellows and learners, but little is known about their demographics. This cross-sectional study aims to examine the characteristics of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) FPDs.

DESIGN

A retrospective cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Data obtained from publicly available information on official websites of the program directors studied.

SUBJECTS

MIGS fellowship program directors.

INTERVENTIONS

All US-based MIGS programs affiliated with the AAGL in 2023 were included. Information about FPD gender, medical school attended and graduation year, residency program attended and graduation year, any additional graduate degrees earned, fellowship programs completed, and the year of their appointment as FPD was collected through publicly available sources. Scholarly activity was measured by peer-reviewed articles and the Hirsch index.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of the 54 FPDs, 28 (51.85%) were female and 26 (48.15%) were male. Male FPDs were significantly older (54.6 ± 8.7 years) than female FPDs (46.2 ± 5.0 years), p <.05. Average age at appointment was 43.1 ± 6.7 years, with female FPDs being appointed at significantly younger ages (39.4 ± 5.1 years) compared to male FPDs (44.5 ± 6.8 years), p <.05. Male FPDs had statistically significant higher Hirsch indices (14 ± 11.4) compared to female FPDs (8 ± 5.8), p <.05. Of the FPDs who completed a fellowship, 27 (50%) did so in MIGS, eight (14.81%) in Gynecologic-Oncology, 6 (11.11%) in Urogynecology, and 4 (7.41%) in Reproductive Endocrinology/Infertility.

CONCLUSIONS

MIGS fellowships have a uniquely equal representation of male and female FPDs, as surgical subspecialties historically tend to be male dominant. Notably, there is diversity in the type of fellowship pursued by MIGS FPDs, with nearly half of FPDs completing a fellowship outside of MIGS. The reasons for differences in scholarly contributions, indicated by Hirsch index, of male versus female FPDs is unclear.

Key actors in behavioral health services availability and accessibility research: a scoping review bibliometric analysis

This bibliometric review aims to identify key actors in the behavioral health services availability/accessibility literature. Coalescing information about these actors could support subsequent research efforts to improve the availability and accessibility of behavioral health services. The authors used a scoping review method and a bibliometric approach. The articles came from Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Articles were included if they assessed behavioral health service availability or accessibility quantitatively and were written in English. The final sample included 265 articles. Bibliometric data were extracted, coded, and verified. The authors analyzed the data using univariate and social network analyses. Publishing in this area has become more consistent and has grown since 2002. Psychiatric Services and Graduate Theses were the most frequently used publication venues. The National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, and the Veterans Administration funded the most research. The most frequently used keyword was "health services accessibility." The findings suggest that this literature is growing. There are a few clusters of researchers in this area. Government organizations primarily fund this research. The paper and supplementary materials list the top researchers, publication venues, funding sources, and key terms to promote further behavioral health availability/accessibility research.

Utilizing a composite citation index for evaluating clinical ophthalmology research: insights into gender, nationality, and self-citation among top ophthalmology researchers

OBJECTIVES

To compare the performance of a composite citation score (c-score) and its six constituent citation indices, including H-index, in predicting winners of the Weisenfeld Award in ophthalmologic research. Secondary objectives were to explore career and demographic characteristics of the most highly cited researchers in ophthalmology.

METHODS

A publicly available database was accessed to compile a set of top researchers in the field of clinical ophthalmology and optometry based on Scopus data from 1996 to 2021. Each citation index was used to construct a multivariable model adjusted for author demographic characteristics. Using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) analysis, each index's model was evaluated for its ability to predict winners of the Weisenfeld Award in Ophthalmology, a research distinction presented by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO). Secondary analyses investigated authors' self-citation rates, career length, gender, and country affiliation over time.

RESULTS

Approximately one thousand unique authors publishing primarily in clinical ophthalmology/optometry were analyzed. The c-score outperformed all other citation indices at predicting Weisenfeld Awardees, with an AUC of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.0). The H-index had an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83-0.96). Authors with higher c-scores tended to have longer career lengths and similar self-citation rates compared to other authors. Sixteen percent of authors in the database were identified as female, and 64% were affiliated with the United States of America.

CONCLUSION

The c-score is an effective metric for assessing research impact in ophthalmology, as seen through its ability to predict Weisenfeld Awardees.

Academic productivity correlates with industry earnings in foot and ankle fellowship programs in the United States: A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

The study investigates the connection between academic productivity and industry earnings in foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships. Utilizing metrics like the H-index and Open Payments Database (OPD) data, it addresses a gap in understanding the relationship between scholarly achievements and financial outcomes, providing a basis for further exploration in this specialized medical field.

AIM

To elucidate the trends between academic productivity and industry earnings across foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowship programs in the United States.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of the relationship between academic productivity and industry earnings of foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships at an individual faculty and fellowship level. Academic productivity was defined via H-index and recorded from the Scopus website. Industry earnings were recorded from the OPD.

RESULTS

Forty-eight foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships (100% of fellowships) in the United States with a combined total of 165 physicians (95.9% of physicians) were included. Mean individual physician (n = 165) total life-time earnings reported on the OPD website was United States Dollar (USD) 451430.30 ± 1851084.89 (range: USD 25.16-21269249.85; median: USD 27839.80). Mean physician (n = 165) H-index as reported on Scopus is 14.24 ± 12.39 (range: 0-63; median: 11). There was a significant but weak correlation between individual physician H-index and individual physician total life-time earnings (P < 0.001; Spearman's rho = 0.334) and a significant and moderate positive correlation between combined fellowship H-index and total life-time earnings per fellowship (P = 0.004, Spearman's rho = 0.409).

CONCLUSION

There is a significant and positive correlation between academic productivity and industry earnings at foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships in the United States. This observation is true on an individual physician level as well as on a fellowship level.

The 100 Leading Contributors to English-Language Gerontological Journals: An International Study of Scholarly Impact

The two aims of this study were to: 1) identify the 100 most impactful contributors to English-language gerontological journals, and 2) map their respective disciplinary affiliations to help illuminate the perspectives shaping gerontological discourse. Toward that end, we conducted a secondary data analysis of a publicly available database of the world's leading scientists. After extracting all scientists in the gerontological category, we rank ordered them according to a composite measure of scholarly impact that controls for self-citations and author order while also calculating other bibliometric statistics. Disciplinary affiliations were assigned based upon the Classification of Instructional Programs codes developed by the National Center for Education Statistics at the United States Department of Education. The results reveal the mean contributor to the gerontological literature published 241.15 (SD = 203.95) papers and - after correcting for self-citations - had an h-index of 50.05 (SD = 25.00), and an hm-index 23.67 (SD = 7.50). A diverse array of professional affiliations characterized the contributors with a plurality being located in the health professions category, followed by the biological and biomedical science, and social sciences categories. The results reveal that gerontology is home to some of the world's leading scientists. Leveraging their expertise can help advance the field's collective knowledge development.

Bibliometric Analysis and Applications of a Modified H-Index Examining the Research Productivity of Neurosurgery Faculty at High-Ranking Academic Institutions

OBJECTIVE

A major critique of the h-index is that it may be inflated by noncritical authorship. We propose a modified h-index (hm), incorporating critical authorship, complementary to the h-index. We analyze its relationship to the traditional h-index, and how each varies across professional categories relevant to academic neurosurgery. This analysis is not meant to critique authorship decisions, affect career development, alter academic legacy, or imply that the concepts of team science or midlevel authorship contributions are not valuable.

METHODS

H-indices and hms were gathered and computed for clinical neurosurgical faculty at the top 32 ranked academic neurosurgical programs based on the current literature. Hm was computed for faculty at each program, using articles in which the individual was first, second, last, or co-corresponding author. Individuals were further identified based on chair status, leadership status, neurosurgical subspecialty, and National Institutes of Health funding status. Further analysis was performed to determine factors influencing h-index and hm.

RESULTS

The median h-index for the 225 physicians included in the final dataset is 48 (interquartile range [IQR], 39-61), whereas the median hm was 32 (IQR, 24-43). The median difference between h-index and hm is 15 (IQR, 10-23). The median hm/h was 64% (IQR, 57-74). National Institutes of Health funding and subspecialty (neurosurgical oncology, neurocritical care, and cerebrovascular) were associated with significant change from h to hm.

CONCLUSIONS

The h-index can be influenced by noncritical authorship, and hm, using critical contributions, can be used as a complement reflecting critical academic output in neurosurgery. Leaders deciding on hiring or promotion should consider disparities in productivity predicated on noncritical authorship contributions.

The h-Index: Understanding its predictors, significance, and criticism

The h-index is an author-level scientometric index used to gauge the significance of a researcher's work. The index is determined by taking the number of publications and the number of times these publications have been cited by others. Although it is widely used in academia, many authors find its calculation confusing. There are websites such as Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Vidwan that provide the h-index of an author. As this metrics is frequently used by recruiting agency and grant approving authority to see the output of researchers, the authors need to know in-depth about it. In this article, we describe both the manual calculation method of the h-index and the details of websites that provide an automated calculation. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the h-index and the factors that determine the h-index of an author. Overall, this article serves as a comprehensive guide for novice authors seeking to understand the h-index and its significance in academia.

Characteristics of bibliometric analyses of the complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine literature: A scoping review protocol

Background: There is a growing body of literature on complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM), which offers a holistic approach to health and the maintenance of social and cultural values. Bibliometric analyses are an increasingly commonly used method employing quantitative statistical techniques to understand trends in a particular scientific field. The objective of this scoping review is to investigate the quantity and characteristics of evidence in relation to bibliometric analyses of CAIM literature. Methods: The following bibliographic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science. Studies published in English, conducting any type of bibliometric analysis involving any CAIM therapies, as detailed by an operational definition of CAIM adopted by Cochrane Complementary Medicine, will be included. Conference abstracts and study protocols will be excluded. The following variables will be extracted from included studies: title, author, year, country, study objective, type of CAIM, health condition targeted, databases searched in the bibliometric analysis, the type of bibliometric variables assessed, how bibliometric information was reported, main findings, conclusions, and limitations. Findings will be summarized narratively, as well as in tabular and graphical format. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this scoping review will be the first to investigate the characteristics of evidence in relation to bibliometric analyses on CAIM literature. The findings of this review may be useful to identify variations in the objectives, methods, and results of bibliometric analyses of CAIM research literature.

Characteristics of bibliometric analyses of the complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine literature: A scoping review protocol

Background: There is a growing body of literature on complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM), which offers a holistic approach to health and the maintenance of social and cultural values. Bibliometric analyses are an increasingly commonly used method employing quantitative statistical techniques to understand trends in a particular scientific field. The objective of this scoping review is to investigate the quantity and characteristics of evidence in relation to bibliometric analyses of CAIM literature. Methods: The following bibliographic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science. Studies published in English, conducting any type of bibliometric analysis involving any CAIM therapies, as detailed by an operational definition of CAIM adopted by Cochrane Complementary Medicine, will be included. Conference abstracts and study protocols will be excluded. The following variables will be extracted from included studies: title, author, year, country, study objective, type of CAIM, health condition targeted, databases searched in the bibliometric analysis, the type of bibliometric variables assessed, how bibliometric information was reported, main findings, conclusions, and limitations. Findings will be summarized narratively, as well as in tabular and graphical format. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this scoping review will be the first to investigate the characteristics of evidence in relation to bibliometric analyses on CAIM literature. The findings of this review may be useful to identify variations in the objectives, methods, and results of bibliometric analyses of CAIM research literature.

Does Academic Productivity Correlate With Industry Payments in Hand Surgery Fellowship Programs in the United States?

BACKGROUND

Hand surgeons and the industry share a common goal to improve the care of patients. However, industry support remains controversial, and the current relationship with fellowship programs remains unclear. This study explores the relationship between industry support and research productivity among hand surgeons in the academic setting.

METHODS

The Open Payments database, created by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as a result of the Sunshine Act, was used to identify supplemental income paid to physicians of hand surgery fellowships in the United States. Both lifetime individual physician and aggregated fellowship Sunshine Act supplemental income (2015-2021) were collected for review. Supplemental income only reflects royalties, consulting fees, or food and does not include direct research funding. H-index was collected through the Scopus website as a proxy for academic productivity.

RESULTS

Six hundred and thirty-four faculty physicians (90.8%) from 94 hand surgery fellowships (100%) were included in the study. The mean individual physician lifetime supplemental income was $67,272 (median $341,861), whereas the mean individual physician H-index was 12.5 (median 9.0). There was a significant and weak positive correlation between individual physician H-index and lifetime income (p<0.001). Similarly, there was a significant and moderately positive correlation between the combined fellowship H-index and total lifetime income (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Research productivity of an orthopedic hand fellowship group and individual academic hand surgeon correlate with overall industry support from indirect research funding. Further work is required to better understand the advantages and disadvantages of industry support of academically productive hand surgeons at hand surgery fellowships.

Self-Citation Rates Among Neurosurgery Journals and Authors: Unethical or Misunderstood?

OBJECTIVE

The role of self-citation has not been discussed in the neurosurgery literature, although citations, citation indices, and impact of research may enhance funding opportunities, academic positions, fellowship opportunities, employment, and professional identity development. We sought to assess the magnitude and role of self-citation in academic neurosurgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the citation and self-citation rates of articles published in 2001-2020 in 7 major neurosurgery journals: Acta Neurochirurgica, Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Review, and World Neurosurgery.

RESULTS

The total number of citations was highest for Journal of Neurosurgery and lowest for Neurosurgical Review. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine had the highest average number of citations per article, followed closely by Journal of Neurosurgery. The self-citation rate increased for all journals over the time period 2001-2020. The highest number of self-citations per article during 2016-2020 was seen in Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics and World Neurosurgery. Neurosurgical Review had the lowest number of self-citations per article.

CONCLUSIONS

Academic neurosurgeons must understand the ecosystem around self-citation. In our study, we found overall low levels of self-citations in neurosurgery journals with a few outliers. We have, however, noticed an increasing trend in self-citation rates. Self-citation rates should be considered while evaluating the impact of an author and research productivity. Contrary to popular belief, self-citation is not always unethical and must be understood within its circumstances.

Mapping the Landscape of Voice Complaints among Teachers: A Bibliometric Investigation

PURPOSE

With the significant and growing interest in voice disorders among teachers over the last several decades, there is value in having a comprehensive overview of the current state of the field and its related research productivity. This study aims to provide an updated and comprehensive mapping of the intellectual structure and research evolution in the field of occupational voice complaints among teachers.

METHODS

A systematic review of scientific articles on occupational voice complaints among teachers published in the last two decades was conducted using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statements. A retrospective bibliometric analysis was then performed using the Web of Science core collection and VOSviewer to identify scientific productivity indicators, including publications per year, productivity by country, journals, and most cited articles.

RESULTS

Based on the search eligibility criteria, a total of 473 articles were initially screened, and from this selection, 157 articles were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria and therefore included in the analysis. The analysis revealed a strong trend in scientific productivity, with a 300% increase in the number of publications during the last decade. The leading countries in publications on this field were Brazil, the United States, and Finland. The Journal of Voice, CoDAS, and Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica were the most frequently published journals. Additionally, the literature on voice complaints among teachers primarily focused on five conceptual clusters: vocal demand response, voice disorders, vocal health promotion, individual-associated factors, and voice symptoms.

CONCLUSION

This study examines the growing literature on voice complaints among teachers over the past 20 years, identifying key countries, journals, and thematic clusters. The findings have important implications for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners, providing insights for collaboration and guiding future advancements in the field.

Gender, race-ethnicity and postdoctoral hiring in STEMM fields

As postdoctoral training has become a requirement in many STEMM fields the influence of postdoc hiring on STEMM labor force inclusion and diversity has increased, yet postdoc hiring processes have received only limited attention from researchers. Drawing on status theory and data for 769 postdoctoral recruitments, we systematically analyze the relationship between gender, race-ethnicity, and postdoctoral hiring. The findings show: (1) differences by gender and race-ethnicity in application rates, and in whether an applicant is seriously considered, interviewed, and offered the postdoc position; (2) hiring disparities correlate with between-group differences in applicants' network connections, referrer prestige, and academic human capital; (3) between-group differences in network connections have the greatest power to account for hiring disparities; and (4) hiring processes may differ by applicant gender or race-ethnicity, the female representation in the STEMM field and the race of the search committee chair. We discuss competing interpretations of the results and highlight directions for future research.

Talent identification research: a bibliometric study from multidisciplinary and global perspectives

This paper describes the general status, trends, and evolution of research on talent identification across multiple fields globally over the last 80 years. Using Scopus and Web of Science databases, we explored patterns of productivity, collaboration, and knowledge structures in talent identification (TI) research. Bibliometric analysis of 2,502 documents revealed talent identification research is concentrated in the fields of management, business, and leadership (~37%), sports and sports science (~20%), and education, psychology, and STEM (~23%). Whereas research in management and sports science has occurred independently, research in psychology and education has created a bridge for the pollination of ideas across fields. Thematic evolution analysis indicates that TI has well developed motor and basic research themes focused on assessment, cognitive abilities, fitness, and youth characteristics. Motor themes in management and sports science bring attention to talent management beyond TI. Emerging research focuses on equity and diversity as well as innovation in identification and technology-based selection methods. Our paper contributes to the development of the body of TI research by (a) highlighting the role of TI across multiple disciplines, (b) determining the most impactful sources and authors in TI research, and (c) tracing the evolution of TI research which identifies gaps and future opportunities for exploring and developing TI research and its broader implications for other areas of research and society.

Gender Equity in Academic Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Departments: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

IMPORTANCE

Gender equity in obstetrics and gynecology remains a barrier to career mobility and workplace satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate gender equity for academic positions in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) divisions with an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited fellowship in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional observational study of all FPMRS divisions with an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited fellowship program in the United States in July 2020 using publicly available demographic and academic data collected from online search engines. Gender equity in academic FPMRS was assessed by gender representation, academic appointment, and research productivity of each attending physician within the division. Research productivity was assessed using both the H-index with career length controlled for with the M-quotient.

RESULTS

There were 348 attending physicians from 72 FPMRS divisions (198 female [56.9%], 150 male [43.1%]). A large percentage of female attending physicians were at the assistant professor level (75.8% [94 of 124]) when compared with their male counterparts (24.4% [30 of 124]; P < 0.001). Conversely, there were a larger percentage of male attending physicians (62.2% [56 of 90]) at the professor level when compared with their female counterparts (37.8% [34 of 90]; P < 0.001). There was no difference in research productivity between male and female attending physicians after controlling for career length with the M-quotient (P = 0.65). Only age (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.24) and the M-quotient (odds ratio, 36.17, 95% confidence interval, 8.57-152.73) were significantly associated with professorship.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that there are more female attending physicians in FPMRS and that most are assistant professors. Male and female FPMRS attending physicians had similar research productivity with respect to their career lengths. Gender was not a determinant for achieving a "professor" appointment.

Optometry research in Spain: Topics of interest, institutions and investigators

PURPOSE

To determine the institutions, journals of choice and topics of investigation of the most prolific and highly cited Spanish optometrist researchers.

METHODS

As a primary search strategy, the Scopus database (Elsevier) was queried with the terms (optometr* OR "contact lens*" OR refracti* OR *ocular) and the affiliation country filter "Spain". The list of authors returned by the primary search was used in a secondary manual search based on co-authors and institutions. Authors were included in the analysis if they had an h-index > 10, were of Spanish nationality, were affiliated to Spanish institutions, and possessed an optometry degree. Authors were ranked by h-index, number of publications and number of citations. Topics of research interest and target journals were determined by analyzing the 10 most highly cited papers of each author.

RESULTS

A total of 32 authors with an h-index > 10 were identified, of whom 14 (43.7%) were female. Only one author had an h-index > 40, and 7 (21.9%) authors had an h-index over 20. The Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery was the first journal of choice (19.1% of highest cited papers), followed by Optometry and Vision Science (10.3%). The Universidad Complutense de Madrid hosted the largest percentage of authors (18.7%), followed by the Universitat de València (15.6%). Main topics of research interest were topography (6.5% of papers), cornea (6.2%) and contact lens (5.0%).

CONCLUSION

Optometry in Spain is a fertile field of research, with an increasing number of highly cited authors publishing in high impact journals.

Could the altmetrics wave bring a flood of confusion for anatomists?

Altmetrics are non-traditional metrics that can capture downloads, social media shares, and other modern measures of research impact and reach. Despite most of the altmetrics literature focusing on evaluating the relationship between research outputs and academic impact/influence, the perceived and actual value of altmetrics among academicians remains nebulous and inconsistent. This work proposes that ambiguities surrounding the value and use of altmetrics may be explained by a multiplicity of altmetrics definitions communicated by journal publishers. A root cause analysis was initiated to compare altmetrics definitions between anatomy and medical education journal publishers' websites and to determine the comparability of the measurement and platform sources used for computing altmetrics values. A scoping content analysis of data from across eight publishers' websites revealed wide variability in definitions and heterogeneity among altmetrics measurement sources. The incongruencies among publishers' altmetrics definitions and their value demonstrate that publishers may be one of the root cause of ambiguity perpetuating confusion around the value and use of altmetrics. This review highlights the need to more deeply explore the root causes of altmetrics ambiguities within academia and makes a compelling argument for establishing a ubiquitous altmetrics definition that is concise, clear, and specific.

A new system of authorship best assessment

Purpose

The standard bibliometric indexes ("m-quotient "H-," "H2-," "g-," "a-," "m-," and "r-" index) do not considered the research' position in the author list of the paper. We proposed a new methodology, System of Authorship Best Assessment (SABA), to characterize the scientific output based on authors' position.

Material and Methods

Four classes S1A, S1B, S2A, and S2B include only papers where the researcher is in first, first/last, first/second/last, and first/second/second-last/last position respectively were used for the calculation of H-index and number of citations The system was tested with Noble prize winners controlled with researchers matched for H-index. The different in percentage between standard bibliometric index and S2B was calculated and compared.

Results

The percentage differences in Noble prize winners between S2B-H-index versus Global H-index and number of citations is very lower comparing with control group (median 4.15% [adjusted 95% CI, 2.54-5.30] vs 9.00 [adjusted 95% CI, 7.16-11.84], p < 0.001; average difference 8.7% vs 20.3%). All different in percentage between standard bibliometric index and S2B except two (H2- and m-index) were significantly lower among Noble prize compared with control group.

Conclusion

The SABA methodology better weight the research impact by showing that for excellent profiles the S2B is similar to global values whereas for other researchers there is a significant difference.

Unblocking recognition: A token system for acknowledging academic contribution

Here we present a blockchain-backed token recognition system to reward the contributions that academics make to the scientific ecosystem. Recognition is important in science but current methods, systems and incentives are limited. Specifically, the traditional focus on narrow publication metrics means diverse contributions are not captured, while bias toward senior, established scientists is common. To tackle this challenge, we explore the potential of harnessing blockchain’s collaborative, decentralised and trust-brokering properties to develop a token reward system for use by research funders. Academics would be awarded tokens for undertaking common but vital tasks such as peer review, sitting on funding committees and submitting reports. These tokens would not be tradable or specifically monetisable but would serve as a validated record of scientific contribution. They would have value in professional recruitment and job placement, support grant and award applications, and inform performance appraisals and file reviews. Coordination and cooperation across multiple funding agencies in developing the platform would provide an opportunity to aggregate and standardise recognition, given academics often work with several funders. This system’s goals are to expand recognition metrics, promote efficiencies, improve the robustness of professional assessments and enable cross-funder collaboration, thereby optimising research processes and practices in a decentralised and democratised manner.

Impact of the number and rank of coauthors on h-index and π-index. The part-impact method

The publication activity of 20 Price-medallists was analysed by calculating several scientometric indices from data of elite sets of their publications. The following elite sets (i.e. most cited papers within the total) were obtained: π-set (where the number of papers is equal to √P, and P is the number of total papers), h-set (in which the number of papers equals to the Hirsch index), 2π-set, 2h-set, and the set of papers (ECP) which are cited more frequently than the average. The percentage share of papers and citations was found to increase in the mentioned rank of the elite sets, except ECP-set. The number of publications and citations in the elite sets was calculated also by different part-impact methods for sharing credit among the coauthors. The applied methods take into account the number or number and rank of coauthors in the by-line of the papers. It was demostrated that any of the methods changes both π and h-index significantly related to the value calculated by attributing total credit to the evaluated individual. The changes strongly depend on the number of coauthors and rank of the studied author in the by-line of the papers. Consequently, in assessing personal contribution of scientists by scientometric indices, sharing credit of publications and citations among the coauthors of publications seems to be highly relevant. Selecting the appropriate impact sharing method depends on the purpose of the evaluation.

Gender and research productivity of award recipients among Canadian national ophthalmology and affiliate subspecialty societies

BACKGROUND

Although women remain historically underrepresented in medical achievement awards, gender distribution of award recipients in ophthalmology in Canada remain to be explored based on research productivity metrics.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the gender distribution of award recipients among the main Canadian national ophthalmological societies and subspecialty affiliates based on research productivity, graduate degrees, affiliated institution, and award type.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study.

METHODS

Award recipients were selected from the Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS), Canadian Association of Paediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (CAPOS); Canadian Cornea, External Disease, and Refractive Surgery Society (CCEDRSS); Canadian Council of Ophthalmology Residents (CCOR) Research Proposal Award; and Canadian Glaucoma Society (CGS). The recipients' gender was determined by web search for the gender-specific pronoun, profile photograph check, or using Gender-API. Outcomes included gender distribution of recipients per award, society, year, and training level and differences in research productivity.

RESULTS

Thirteen special awards were given to 255 recipients (215 individuals) from 1995 to 2022. In total, 31% of recipients were women, the majority being from Canada. Women had a significantly lower median h-index (2.0 (0-62) women versus 4.0 (0-81) men, p = 0.001) and number of published documents (3.0 (0-213) women versus 8.0 (0-447) men, p < 0.001). On stratified analyses by type of award (research or lifetime achievement) and level of training (trainee or ophthalmologist), significant differences were found for mean h-index and number of publications for awardees within the research category (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively) and trainee level (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively). Overall, women's proportion rates in awards did not reach parity in 27 out of the 28 years analyzed.

CONCLUSION

Women were confirmed to be historically minored in proportion among the prominent society awards in Canada, with attested research disparity possibly explaining some of this bias. These findings require further confirmation in larger cohorts accounting for additional educational, institutional, and provincial factors.

REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Evaluating individual scientific output normalized to publication age and academic field through the Scientometrics.org project

When evaluating the publication performance of a scientist one has to consider not only the difference in publication norms in different scientific fields, but also the length of the academic career of the investigated researcher. Here, our goal was to establish a database suitable as a reference for the ranking of scientific performance by normalizing the researchers output to those with the same academic career length and active in same scientific field. By using the complete publication and citation data of 17,072 Hungarian researchers, we established a framework enabling the quick assessment of a researcher’s scientific output by comparing four parameters (h-index, yearly independent citations received, number of publications, and number of high impact publications), to the age-matched values of all other researchers active in the same scientific discipline. The established online tool available at www.scientometrics.org could be an invaluable help for faster and more evidence-based grant review processes.

Metrics to evaluate implementation scientists in the USA: what matters most?

Background

Implementation science has grown rapidly as a discipline over the past two decades. An examination of how publication patterns and other scholarly activities of implementation scientists are weighted in the tenure and promotion process is needed given the unique and applied focus of the field.

Methods

We surveyed implementation scientists (mostly from the USA) to understand their perspectives on the following matters: (1) factors weighted in tenure and promotion for implementation scientists, (2) how important these factors are for success as an implementation scientist, (3) how impact is defined for implementation scientists, (4) top journals in implementation science, and (5) how these journals are perceived with regard to their prestige. We calculated univariate descriptive statistics for all quantitative data, and we used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to compare the participants’ ratings of various factors. We analyzed open-ended qualitative responses using content analysis.

Results

One hundred thirty-two implementation scientists completed the survey (response rate = 28.9%). Four factors were rated as more important for tenure and promotion decisions: number of publications, quality of publication outlets, success in obtaining external funding, and record of excellence in teaching. Six factors were rated as more important for overall success as an implementation scientist: presentations at professional meetings, involvement in professional service, impact of the implementation scientist’s scholarship on the local community and/or state, impact of the implementation scientist’s scholarship on the research community, the number and quality of the implementation scientist’s community partnerships, and the implementation scientist’s ability to disseminate their work to non-research audiences. Participants most frequently defined and described impact as changing practice and/or policy. This expert cohort identified Implementation Science as the top journal in the field.

Conclusions

Overall, there was a significant mismatch between the factors experts identified as being important to academic success (e.g., tenure and promotion) and the factors needed to be a successful implementation scientist. Findings have important implications for capacity building, although they are largely reflective of the promotion and tenure process in the USA.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00323-0.

Analysis of Research Productivity and Assessment of Geographical Region in the General Surgery Match: How Much is Enough?

OBJECTIVES

The number of publications of prospective surgical residents has steadily increased over the past decade as the emphasis on research output has become paramount. However, the reported data from the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) does not discriminate amongst impact, author position, and region of matched residents. This study aimed to evaluate categorical general surgery postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) residents' research productivity by programs' research impact and region of the United States and support the need for additional public data on research metrics of accepted applicants. We hypothesize that residents accepted to top quartile schools will have more total and first author publications and higher h-index compared to residents in the other quartiles, and research metrics would not differ amongst the regions.

DESIGN

The Doximity Residency Navigator was used to sort general surgery programs based on research output, which was determined by the average h-index of residents. All 2021 matriculating PGY-1 categorical residents from the top two programs from each region and quartile that met study criteria were included in the analysis. Web of Science (WoS) citation database was used to collect prior to residency and current total publications, and the first, last, and corresponding author positions of these publications. Residents' h-index and various research metrics reported by WoS were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the association between quartile and region.

SETTING

Categorical general surgery residency programs throughout the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Categorical PGY-1 general surgery residents.

RESULTS

The median total number of publications prior to residency was 1 (IQR = 0-5). The median total number of first-author publications prior to residency was 0 (IQR = 0-1), and the current h-index was 0 (IQR = 0-2). The top quartile had more total and first author publications prior to residency, while the other quartiles had similar metrics. Each region had similar total publications and h-index.

CONCLUSIONS

Research output is significant for applicants applying to top-quartile research programs compared to the other 3 quartiles and is relatively similar throughout all regions of the United States. Public data is limited to future applicants.

Rigor and reproducibility for data analysis and design in the study of eating disorders

OBJECTIVE

Incorporating open science practices has become a priority for submission criteria in the International Journal of Eating Disorders (IJED). In this systematic review, we used the rigor and reproducibility framework developed by Hildebrandt and Prenoveau (2020) to examine the implementation of statistically sound open science principles in IJED, determining whether the cost and effort of incorporating these practices ultimately make research more likely to be cited.

METHOD

For this systematic review, six trained coders examined 1145 articles published from January 2011 to May 2021, including the 5 years prior to the 2016 introduction of the Open Science Foundation article preregistration. We coded for the presence or absence of 10 specific open science elements and calculated citation metrics for each article.

RESULTS

There was evidence of a significant positive relationship between time and total rigor and reproducibility (Total RR) criteria included in IJED articles following the implementation of preregistration in 2016. For every increase in year from 2011 to 2016, there was a .14 decrease in Total RR criteria. From 2016 to 2021, there was a .42 increase per volume in Total RR criteria. There was no statistically significant relationship between Total RR criteria and citation impact.

DISCUSSION

Although findings indicate that statistical rigor and reproducibility in this field has increased, the lack of direct relationship between open science methods and article visibility for scientists suggests that there is a limited incentive for researchers to participate in reporting guidelines.

PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE

Statistical controversies within science threaten the rigor and reproducibility of published research. Open science practices, including the preregistration of study hypotheses, links to statistical code, and explicit data-sharing arguably generate reliable and valid inferences. This review illustrates the rigor and reproducibility of articles published in IJED between 2011 and 2021 and identifies whether open sciences practices have become increasingly prevalent in eating disorder research.

Authors who contributed most to the fields of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis since 2011 using the hT-index: Bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

The h-index does not take into account the full citation list of a researcher to evaluate individual research achievements (IRAs). As a generalization of the h-index, the hT-index takes all citations into account to evaluate IRAs. Compared to other bibliometric indices, it is unclear whether the hT-index is more closely associated with the h-index. We utilized articles published on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis (HD/PD) to validate the hT-index as a measure of the most significant contributions to HD/PD.

METHODS

Using keywords involving HD/PD in titles, subject areas, and abstracts since 2011, we obtained 7702 abstracts and their associated metadata (e.g., citations, authors, research institutes, countries of origin). In total, 4752 first or corresponding authors with hT-indices >0 were evaluated. To present the author's IRA, the following 4 visualizations were used: radar, Sankey, impact beam plot, and choropleth map to investigate whether the hT-index was more closely associated with the h-index than other indices (e.g., g-/x-indices and author impact factors), whether the United States still dominates the majority of publications concerning PD/HD, and whether there was any difference in research features between 2 prolific authors.

RESULTS

In HD/PD articles, we observed that (a) the hT-index was closer to and associated with the h-index; (b1) the United States (37.15), China (34.63), and Japan (28.09) had the highest hT-index; (b2) Sun Yat Sen University (Chian) earned the highest hT-index (=20.02) among research institutes; (c1) the authors with the highest hT-indices (=15.64 and 14.39, respectively) were David W Johnson (Australia) and Andrew Davenport (UK); and (c2) their research focuses on PD and HD, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The hT-index was demonstrated to be appropriate for assessing IRAs along with visualizations. The hT-index is recommended in future bibliometric analyses of IRAs as a complement to the h-index.

The Author-Level Metrics Study: An Analysis of the Traditional and Alternative Metrics of Scholarly Impact for Neurosurgical Authors

Background and objective

There is a paucity of information regarding the concordance of traditional metrics across publicly searchable databases and about the correlation between alternative and traditional metrics for neurosurgical authors. In this study, we aimed to assess the congruence between traditional metrics reported across Google Scholar (GS), Scopus (Sc), and ResearchGate (RG). We also aimed to establish the mathematical correlation between traditional metrics and alternative metrics provided by ResearchGate.

Methods

Author names listed on papers published in the Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) in 2019 were collated. Traditional metrics [number of publications (NP), number of citations (NC), and author H-indices (AHi)] and alternative metrics (RG score, Research Interest score, etc. from RG and the GS i10-index) were also collected from publicly searchable author profiles. The concordance between the traditional metrics across the three databases was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman (BA) plots. The mathematical relation between the traditional and alternative metrics was analyzed.

Results

The AHi showed excellent agreement across the three databases studied. The level of agreement for NP and NC was good at lower median counts. At higher median counts, we found an increase in disagreement, especially for NP. The RG score, number of followers on RG, and Research Interest score independently predicted NC and AHi with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Conclusions

A composite author-level matrix with AHi, RG score, Research Interest score, and the number of RG followers could be used to generate an "Impact Matrix" to describe the scholarly and real-world impact of a clinician’s work.

Can rubrics combat gender bias in faculty hiring?

Some bias persiste d, but rubric use should be encouraged.

Research Hotspots and Trends of Peripheral Nerve Injuries Based on Web of Science From 2017 to 2021: A Bibliometric Analysis

Background

Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) is very common in clinical practice, which often reduces the quality of life of patients and imposes a serious medical burden on society. However, to date, there have been no bibliometric analyses of the PNI field from 2017 to 2021. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of research and frontier trends in the field of PNI research from a bibliometric perspective.

Methods

Articles and reviews on PNI from 2017 to 2021 were extracted from the Web of Science database. An online bibliometric platform, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer software were used to generate viewable views and perform co-occurrence analysis, co-citation analysis, and burst analysis. The quantitative indicators such as the number of publications, citation frequency, h-index, and impact factor of journals were analyzed by using the functions of “Create Citation Report” and “Journal Citation Reports” in Web of Science Database and Excel software.

Results

A total of 4,993 papers was identified. The number of annual publications in the field remained high, with an average of more than 998 publications per year. The number of citations increased year by year, with a high number of 22,272 citations in 2021. The United States and China had significant influence in the field. Johns Hopkins University, USA had a leading position in this field. JESSEN KR and JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE were the most influential authors and journals in the field, respectively. Meanwhile, we found that hot topics in the field of PNI focused on dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and satellite glial cells (SGCs) for neuropathic pain relief and on combining tissue engineering techniques and controlling the repair Schwann cell phenotype to promote nerve regeneration, which are not only the focus of research now but is also forecast to be of continued focus in the future.

Conclusion

This is the first study to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of publications related to PNI from 2017 to 2021, whose bibliometric results can provide a reliable source for researchers to quickly understand key information in this field and identify potential research frontiers and hot directions.