hglobal-Index: A Novel Author-Level Measure of the Diffusion of Scientific Ideas Among High-, Low-, and Middle-Income Countries

OBJECTIVE

To describe an intuitive and useful method for measuring the global impact of a medical scholar's research ideas by examining cross-border citations (CBCs) of peer-reviewed neurosurgical publications.

METHODS

Publication and citation data for a random sample of the top 50 most academically productive neurosurgeons were obtained from Scopus Application Programming Interface. We characterized an author-level global impact index analogous to the widely used h-index, the hglobal-index, defined as the number of published peer-reviewed manuscripts with at least the same number of CBCs. To uncover socioeconomic insights, we explored the hglobal-index for high-, middle-, and low-income countries.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range) number of publications and CBCs were 144 (62-255) and 2704 (959-5325), respectively. The median (interquartile range) h-index and hglobal-index were 42 (23-61) and 32 (17-38), respectively. Compared with neurosurgeons in the random sample, the 3 global neurosurgeons had the highest hglobal-indices in low-income countries at 17, 13, and 9, despite below-average h-index scores of 33, 38, and 19, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This intuitive update to the h-index uses CBCs to measure the global impact of scientific research. The hglobal-index may provide insight into global diffusion of medical ideas, which can be used for social science research, author self-assessment, and academic promotion.

Academic accomplishments of Black neurosurgeons in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Neurosurgery has remained relatively homogeneous in terms of racial and gender diversity, trailing behind national demographics. Less than 5% of practicing neurosurgeons in the United States identify as Black/African American (AA). Research and academic productivity are highly emphasized within the field and are crucial for career advancement at academic institutions. They also serve as important avenues for mentorship and recruitment of diverse trainees and medical students. This study aimed to summarize the academic accomplishments of AA neurosurgeons by assessing publication quantity, h-index, and federal grant funding.

METHODS

One hundred thirteen neurosurgery residency training programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 2022 were included in this study. The American Society of Black Neurosurgeons registry was reviewed to analyze the academic metrics of self-identified Black or AA academic neurosurgeons. Data on the academic rank, leadership position, publication quantity, h-index, and race of neurosurgical faculty in the US were obtained from publicly available information and program websites.

RESULTS

Fifty-five AA and 1393 non-AA neurosurgeons were identified. Sixty percent of AA neurosurgeons were fewer than 10 years out from residency training, compared to 37.4% of non-AA neurosurgeons (p = 0.001). AA neurosurgeons had a median 32 (IQR 9, 85) publications compared to 52 (IQR 22, 122) for non-AA neurosurgeons (p = 0.019). AA neurosurgeons had a median h-index of 12 (IQR 5, 24) compared to 16 (IQR 9, 31) for non-AA colleagues (p = 0.02). Following stratification by academic rank, these trends did not persist. No statistically significant differences in the median amounts of awarded National Institutes of Health funding (p = 0.194) or level of professorship attained (p = 0.07) were observed between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Racial disparities between AA and non-AA neurosurgeons exist in publication quantity and h-index overall but not when these groups are stratified by academic rank. Given that AA neurosurgeons comprise more junior faculty, it is expected that their academic accomplishments will increase as more enter academic practice and current neurosurgeons advance into more senior positions.

Journal metrics of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals - A cross-sectional, comparative study

PURPOSE

In academic publishing, research metrics play a crucial role in assessing the scientific impact and performance of the published literature, as well as of the journals in which they are published. Several journal-level metrics (JLM) such as the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document are considered crucial indicators of the importance and reputation of the journals. We hypothesize that journals in the field of Medicine receive more citations than those in Surgical journals like Orthopaedic surgery, and hence have better JLM. This study aims to to assess and compare the JLM of Medical and Surgical journals between two time zones 2017-2019 vs. 2020-2022, i.e., pre and post-COVID-19 pandemic period.

METHODS

A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals was undertaken based on traditional JLM, using the SCImago database from 2017 to 2022. Our analysis focused on identifying trends in the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document.

RESULTS

Overall Medical journals were found to have higher JLM than the Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. The h-index of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were comparable between the two periods (pre and -post-COVID-19 pandemic); Total Cites (3 years), total documents (2017), total documents (3 years), total references, and citable documents (3 years) of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were significantly higher in the period 2020-2022.

CONCLUSION

There has been a steady increase in the number of publications from post COVID-19 period. Medical journals have higher JLM than Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am), Annals of Surgery and Diabetes Care were the most published journals in Orthopaedics, General Surgery and Medicine-related topics respectively.

The Top 50 Articles and Authors of the New Millennium in Psychiatry: A Bibliometric Analysis

The field of psychiatry faces significant challenges in the new millennium, marked by a surge in mental health diagnoses coupled with barriers to accessing adequate care. Despite obstacles, notable advancements have been achieved throughout the field, including the release of DSM-5, the introduction of esketamine, and the development of innovative assessment tools. This study aims to comprehensively analyze recent advances in psychiatry by examining the top 50 most cited articles and authors since 2000, addressing a gap in the literature left by previous subfield-focused bibliometric studies. Utilizing the Web of Science (WOS) database, this bibliometric analysis examined all publications in psychiatric journals from January 1, 2000, to September 18, 2022. The top 50 most cited articles and authors were identified and characterized based on various metrics, including times cited, article type, and institutional affiliations. WOS extracted 699,005 articles, with authors from the United States contributing the highest number of publications. The top 50 articles spanned a variety of formats, with cross-sectional studies, new measures, literature reviews, and randomized controlled trials being the most prevalent. The American Journal of Psychiatry emerged as the leading journal, hosting eight of the top 50 articles. Among the top 50 authors, female representation was limited, comprising 24% of first authors and 22% overall. Institutional affiliations revealed a majority of top authors worked at universities affiliated with the top 40 NIH-funded departments of psychiatry, with those affiliated with Harvard University leading in authorship contributions. This study sheds light on recent advancements in psychiatry, emphasizing the underrepresentation of female authors and the prevalence of top authors affiliated with major NIH-funded programs. This bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive overview of recent advances and the top recent contributors in the field, fostering a deeper understanding of the evolving landscape of psychiatry in the new millennium.

Bibliometric Indices As Indicators of Research Output: Analyzing Anesthesiologists as a Paradigm for Surgical Disciplines

Anesthesiology is one of the increasingly competitive surgical specialties with a growing emphasis on scholarly activity. A metric of productivity and citation influence, the Hirsch index (h-index), can help identify mentors capable of guiding postgraduate trainees toward successful academic achievements. This study sought to determine associations between h-indices or m-quotients and manuscript publication in anesthesiology. Using the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) website, accepted abstracts from the ASA Annual Meetings from 2019 to 2021 were screened (n=2146). The first author (FAHi) and senior author (SAHi) h-indices, as well as the first author (FAMq) and senior author (SAMq) m-quotients, were collected for each abstract using the Scopus database. Whether an accepted abstract was subsequently published as a manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal was also noted, along with the number of days between ASA presentation and publication date. Linear and logistic regression models were used for statistical analyses. In total, 348 (34.4%) of the 1012 eligible abstracts were published as manuscripts. Mean FAHi, SAHi, FAMq, and SAMq, were significantly higher for accepted ASA abstracts that were later published in peer-reviewed journals compared to accepted abstracts that were not published (p<0.001). FAHi, SAHi, FAMq, and SAMq had significant positive associations with odds of publication (p=0.002; p<0.001; p=0.006; p<0.001, respectively). There was no statistical significance between FAHi, SAHi, FAMq, or SAMq and the number of days between ASA presentation and publication. Our study uniquely demonstrates the positive, direct association between h-indices and m-quotients with the probability of publication in anesthesiology. We propose that bibliometric indices are adapted to provide a refined perspective of a physician-scientist's capabilities. Postgraduate trainees can use these indices to discern research mentors primed to foster academic excellence.

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.

A Modified H-index Calculated Using the Duration of Professional Experience and the Author's Significant Contribution to Publications

Recently, the h-index (HI) has been accepted as a globally valid indicator that measures the professional achievement of scientists. Although it has been criticized in some respects, it is the most frequently used parameter as a criterion that generally measures the number and quality of publications combined. In the evaluation of the scientific publication, apart from these, the duration (years) of professional experience of the scientist and the impact/significance of the author's contribution to publications should also be used; however, HI does not take these into account. In this article, we present our recommendations for a modified HI considering these two important parameters.

Posters Presented at North American Skull Base Society 2016-2018: What Factors Influence Their Publication?

Objective  Research productivity impacts an individual's academic credentials and serves to advance the field of neurosurgery at large. Poster presentations allow researchers to share preliminary results with respected colleagues; however, more critical is the ability to publish peer-reviewed articles. Key factors that lead posters to journal publication are not well understood and difficult to quantify. This study investigates the association between bibliometrics of authors who presented posters at the North American Skull Base Society (NASBS) meeting and odds of journal publication. Methods  Posters from the 2016 to 2018 NASBS archive were reviewed. Hirsch-index (h-index) of first (FH) and senior (SH) authors, research type, research topic, and number of poster authors (nAuthPost) were collected. For posters published as journal articles, number of days from poster presentation to publication (nDays), number of authors in published articles (nAuthArt), and journal impact factor (JIF) were recorded. Results  One-hundred sixty-nine of 481 posters (35.1%) were published as articles. Median FH and SH for published versus unpublished posters were 7 versus 5 ( p  = 0.01) and 29 versus 19 ( p  < 0.001), respectively. When adjusted with multivariate regression, only SH ( p  < 0.001) and nAuthPost ( p  = 0.001) were significantly associated with odds of publication. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) nDays was 361 (394). Increased authors from poster to article ( p  = 0.017) and lower FH ( p  = 0.08) were correlated with increased time to publication. Median (IQR) JIF for all publications was 1.723 (1.068). Conclusions  Bibliometrics such as h-index and number of authors from posters can help objectively characterize and predict future success in research productivity.

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.

Bibliometric review on microplastic contamination in the Pacific Alliance countries

Microplastics, capable of absorbing persistent organic compounds, heavy metals, and emerging pollutants, are of global concern due to their potential to alter the behavior and metabolism of biota. In Latin America, the Pacific Alliance, comprising Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Chile, stands out for its biological wealth and productive ecosystems, which account for 37% of the region's gross domestic product. The leaders of these countries expressed their concern about microplastic pollution and pledged to take joint action. We conducted an analysis of the scientific production of these countries and the collaborations of their researchers, focused on the period 2015-2023, using Scopus and SCImago. We observed that marine-coastal/wetland ecosystems are the most studied, with a focus on fish, and that Mexico leads in publications, followed by Colombia, Peru, and Chile. In addition, we note the absence of an inter-institutional group dedicated to microplastics research in these countries. We recommend promoting collaboration between academic institutions specialized in microplastic research and government agencies dedicated to the promotion of science and technology in the countries belonging to the Pacific Alliance.

Identifying the Leading Global Contributors to Scholarship in Religion Journals: A Bibliometric Study

This study identified the 100 most impactful global contributors to religion journals and mapped their respective disciplinary affiliations. To conduct this investigation, we performed a secondary data analysis of a Scopus-derived database featuring the world's leading scientists. The mean contributor published 51.93 papers, had an h-index of 13.57, and an hm-index 11.50. Most contributors were located in the USA with the most common disciplinary affiliations being religion, non-specialized (n = 22), sociology, non-specialized (n = 21), sociology of religion (n = 20), and theology (n = 11). The results reveal that religion discourse is populated by some of the leading scholars in the world. Leveraging their expertise can help advance the field's knowledge development.

Who cites optometry journals?

PURPOSE

This work seeks to identify the most impactful journals, papers, authors, institutions, and countries that cite optometry journal articles.

METHODS

The Scopus database was searched for papers citing at least one article published in any of the 18 optometry journals included in that database (i.e. 'optometry articles'). The 10 most highly cited papers that cite optometry journal articles were determined from 82,830 papers found. A h-index for "optometry journal citations" (the hOJC-index) was derived for each entity in the categories of journals, papers, authors, institutions and countries to serve as a measure of impact.

RESULTS

The hOJC-index of the body of papers citing optometry journal articles is 370. Papers citing optometry journal articles have themselves been cited 2,054,816 times. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science (hOJC = 154) is the most impactful journal citing optometry articles and Optometry and Vision Science the most prolific (5310 papers). The most impactful paper citing optometry journal articles (5725 citations) was published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Ophthalmologist Seang Mei Saw (hOJC = 69) is the most impactful author and optometrist Nathan Efron is the most prolific (288 papers). Harvard University (hOJC = 127) is the most impactful and UNSW Sydney is the most prolific institution (1761 papers). The United States is the most impactful and prolific nation (hOJC = 313; 28,485 papers).

CONCLUSIONS

Optometry journal articles are cited extensively by optometrists, ophthalmologists, and vision scientists world-wide, as well as authors from a broad spectrum of non-ophthalmic research domains. This work confirms the utility and influence of optometry journals.

Analysis of Dermatology Content by Top Influencers on Twitter and Their Academic Impact: Cross-Sectional Study

Collapse

Gender Disparities Among Academic Vitreoretinal Specialists in the United States With Regard to Scholarly Impact and Academic Rank

Background and objective While men outnumber women in the specialty of ophthalmology in general, the subspecialty of vitreoretinal surgery in particular has the highest percentage of men across all ophthalmic subspecialties. This study aimed to analyze the gender disparities regarding the publication productivity and academic rank of academic vitreoretinal specialists in the United States (US). Methods This cross-sectional study evaluated 116 ophthalmology residency programs in the US participating in the 2022 San Francisco Match. The academic vitreoretinal faculty from each ophthalmology residency program was included. The information on gender, academic rank, and publication activity in terms of the h-index were collected from institutional websites, the Scopus database, and the National Library of Medicine PubMed website. Results A total of 467 academic vitreoretinal specialists were identified. Among them, 345 (73.9%) were men, and 122 (26.1%) were women (p<0.001). When the academic ranks were analyzed, a higher number of men (43.8%) were found to hold the rank of full professor as compared to women. Furthermore, a higher number of women (47.5%) were found to hold the rank of assistant professor as compared to their male colleagues. Regarding the number of publications, in all academic rank categories, women had a significantly lower number of publications compared to men (p<0.001). Men also had a higher publication productivity or scholarly impact [h-index=15.2 ± 0.82 standard error of the mean (SEM)] compared to women (h-index=12.8 ± 0.99 SEM) (p=0.0004). Higher h-index correlated with higher academic rank, from assistant professor through full professor (p<0.001). Conclusion The field of vitreoretinal surgery has significantly fewer women compared to men, with women producing fewer publications and having less scholarly impact. H-index and total number of publications are also associated with a higher academic rank. Furthermore, full professors are more likely to be men, while assistant professors are more likely to be women. Future efforts should be aimed at reducing the gender disparity in vitreoretinal surgery.

The 100 most-cited articles published in the Veterinary Ophthalmology journal between 1998 and 2022: A bibliometric study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to bibliometrically analyze the 100 most-cited articles published in the Veterinary Ophthalmology (VO) journal.

METHODS

Web of Science was searched for citations of VO articles published in 1998-2022. Tissue and species studied, and first and last author domicile and affiliation were recorded for the 100 most-cited articles and descriptively analyzed.

RESULTS

Altogether, the 100 most-cited VO articles have cited a total of 5483 times. Most commonly, these were devoted to the cornea (23%), multiple tissues (19%), and glaucoma (16%). Studies on dogs (36%), horses (17%), and multiple species (15%) were most often cited. Most first/last authors were from the USA (n = 113), Brazil (n = 13), and France and Germany (n = 7 each), and most frequently affiliated with the University of Florida (n = 36), University of Wisconsin-Madison (n = 15), and Animal Health Trust, North Carolina State University, and Ohio State University (n = 6 each). KN Gelatt (n = 9), DE Brooks (n = 6), and FJ Ollivier and EO MacKay (n = 5 each) were the most frequent first or last authors. The greatest number of citations was for articles with KN Gelatt (n = 555), FJ Ollivier (n = 411), and DE Brooks (n = 372) as first or last authors. "The comparative morphology of the tapetum lucidum" by FJ Ollivier et al. (2002) is the most frequently cited article in VO history (n = 178).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insight into the impact of publishing in VO and a more comprehensive understanding of trends and the most influential contributions to VO.

The 'scientist', the 'analyst' and the 'novelist': science or metrics?

An overwhelming number of meta-analyses and reviews are published by scientific journals. In part this may reflect some preference of editors and publishers for these types of papers, which are more frequently cited and can increase the impact factor of their journals. Meta-analyses and reviews are also attractive for investigators looking for a greater chance of having successful publications with several citations, and therefore an improved personal h-index. This greater 'promise of success' might have a deleterious effect on the intellectual maturation of investigators, particularly early career investigators, who might neglect original research and concentrate their efforts on meta-analyses and reviews. However, while meta-analyses and reviews are useful for emphasising data and disseminating concepts, progress in science requires original ideas, original experiments and original papers. 'Analysts' and 'novelists' are welcome, but 'scientists' are indispensable.

The Effect of Multiple Scopus Profiles on the Perceived Academic Productivity of Neurosurgeons in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Bibliometrics assessing academic productivity plays a significant role in neurosurgeons' career advancement. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of multiple author profiles on Scopus on neurosurgeon author-level metrics (h-index, document number, citation number).

METHODS

A list of 1671 academic neurosurgeons was compiled through public searches of hospital and faculty websites for 115 neurosurgical residency training programs. The h-index, document number, and citation number for each neurosurgeon were collected using the Scopus algorithm. For surgeons with multiple profiles, total document number and citation number were calculated by summing results of each profile. Cumulative h-indices were calculated manually. Comparisons were made between surgeons with a single Scopus profile and surgeons with multiple profiles.

RESULTS

A total of 124 neurosurgeons with multiple profiles were identified. Gender distribution (P = 0.47), years in practice (P = 0.06), subspecialty (P = 0.32), and academic rank (P = 0.16) between neurosurgeons with a single profile versus multiple profiles were similar. Primary profile h-index median was 16 (interquartile range [IQR]: 8-34), combined profiles median was 20 (IQR: 11-36), and percent loss median was 17.3% (IQR: 3%-33%) (P < 0.001). For document number, primary profile median was 46 (IQR: 16-127), combined profiles median was 55 (IQR: 22-148), and percent loss median was 16.2% (IQR: 7%-36%) (P < 0.001). For citation number, primary profile median was 1030 (IQR: 333-4082), combined profiles median was 1319 (IQR: 546-4439), and percent loss median was 14.1% (IQR: 4%-32%) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

U.S. academic neurosurgeons with multiple existing profiles on Scopus experience a 17.3% loss in h-index, a 16.2% loss in document number, and a 14.1% loss in citations, heavily undercounting their perceived academic productivity.

Correlation of Scholarly Activity and Departmental Clinical Productivity in a Surgical Subspecialty

INTRODUCTION

Promotion within academic surgery involves demonstrated excellence in administrative, clinical, and scholarly activities. The present study analyzes the relationship between scholarly and clinical productivity in the field of reconstructive microsurgery.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of microsurgery fellowship directors (MFDs). Data on clinical productivity were obtained from the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery and scholarly productivity from Scopus. Outcomes were department annual free flap volume, number of publications, and h-index. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and nonparametric tests were used to compare continuous variables.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine MFDs were included in this study. All were plastic surgery residency trained and 38% trained under the independent training pathway. Most underwent formal fellowship training in reconstructive microsurgery (89%). The top three microsurgery fellowships trained 37% of all MFDs. Twenty-five percent of MFDs trained at the institution where they ultimately became program director. Twenty percent of MFDs had an additional degree (4 MS, 2 PhD, and 1 MBA). The median number of annual free flaps performed per institution was 175 (interquartile range [IQR] 122). The median h-index was 17 (IQR 13) resulting from 48 (IQR 99) publications. There was a correlation between department annual free flap volume and h-index (r = 0.333, P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a correlation between academic productivity of MFDs and the clinical productivity of their department. This study provides a benchmark for aspiring reconstructive microsurgeons.

Association of Practice Setting and Scholarly Activity With Medicolegal Claims in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the association between scholarly activity, academic rank, practice setting, and malpractice claims among otolaryngologists over the past decade.

METHODS

Data was extracted from the two legal databases, WestLaw and LexisNexis. The records were obtained from January 2010 to January 2020. Scopus and PubMed databases were used to identify bibliometric data.

RESULTS

Of the 102 malpractice cases identified, 77.5% (N = 79) were ruled in favor of the defendant, 13.7% (N = 14) in favor of the plaintiff, and 8.8% (N = 9) were settled outside of the court. A total amount of $46,533,346.82 was rewarded to plaintiffs in 14 cases. Endoscopic sinus surgery was the procedure associated with the most malpractice claims (N = 16). Alleged improper performance (N = 51) was the most common underlying reason for litigation. Of the 102 defendant surgeons, 82 (80.4%) were in community/private settings. Among the 14 cases in that a surgeon was found at fault, 13 (92.8%) were in the community/private setting. Among the surgeons with at least one publication, the mean Hirsch Index (h-index) was 8.2. There was a statistically significant correlation between the mean h-index and litigation outcome (95% CI: -8.9 to -0.9, P = .017).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed that most malpractice litigations were among otolaryngologists practicing in community/private settings. We also found that higher scholarly activity measured by the h-index was associated with verdicts in favor of the defendant/surgeon. This study was limited by not all-inclusive aspects of the legal databases that were used, the small sample size, and the lack of multivariable analysis.

Neurosurgical Academic Impact Rankings by h5-Index: A Global Perspective

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess the 5-year h-index (h5)-index by nation. We aimed to assess the relationship between a nation's h5-index and numbers of neurosurgeons, population, gross domestic product (GDP), and expenditure on both health and research.

METHODS

Using Web of Science we collected data on each nation's h5-index and number of publications for the 5-year period 2016 to 2020. Neurosurgical data were collected from the global neurosurgical workforce map provided by the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies. National economic data were collected from the World Bank Open Data provided. We analyzed how economic and neurosurgical factors correlated with h5-index and publication numbers.

RESULTS

We report the top 28 countries ranked according to their h5-index. Regarding the h5-index the strongest positive relationship was found with GDP, proportion of GDP spent on health and total amount spent on health per capita. In regard to the total number of publications (2016 to 2020), the strongest positive relationship was found with GDP and total number of neurosurgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to explore the h-index between nations on an international level. GDP and proportion of GDP spent on health expenditure are the strongest correlates of the h5-index. Although a higher number of neurosurgeons in a nation does result in more publications, this is not necessarily translated into higher quality research.

United States Neurosurgery Department Program Directors: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Current and Future Trends and Attributes

BACKGROUND

While United States (U.S.) neurosurgery residency programs have been subject to many studies, none have focused solely on the program directors (PDs). We aim to analyze the demographic, educational, and academic attributes of this cohort to understand current and future trends of PDs.

METHODS

One hundred sixteen neurosurgeons listed as PDs at U.S. accredited neurosurgical residency training programs as of August 2022 were assessed. Descriptive data including age upon acceptance of role, gender, and h-index were collected from publicly available sources.

RESULTS

Most PDs matriculated to their positions before the age of 45 years, were male, and had been hired internally. Approximately 25% of PDs had earned an additional degree. Departments with higher aggregate h-indexes were more likely to hire PDs with higher average publications per year (P < 0.001) and have a higher h-index (P < 0.001). PD subspecialty influenced h-index (P < 0.05) and total average publications per year (P < 0.05) with neuro-oncology subspecialists having higher averages in both. More recently hired PDs had a higher average number of publications per year (P < 0.05) and were more likely to hold an additional degree (odds ratio 1.14, P < 0.05). Female PDs were hired at a younger age (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Neurosurgery PDs typically rise to their position after 10 years of practice and more recent PD hires are more likely to have additional degrees and more publications. As academic neurosurgery becomes more competitive, increased academic productivity and acquisition of additional degrees will become increasingly necessary.

Citations and Author Characteristics in Open-Access and Subscription-Based Otolaryngology Journals

OBJECTIVE

To describe the academic impact and author characteristics of open-access journals in otolaryngology.

METHODS

Original articles from three open-access (OTO Open, Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, and World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology) and three conventional subscription-based otolaryngology specific journals (Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery) were assessed. Publication dates of articles from January 2017 to July 2020 were included. Google Scholar and Web of Science citation counts were recorded. H-indexes of first and last authors were included according to Google Scholar and Web of Science and analyzed.

RESULTS

This analysis included 3284 articles. Articles published in open-access otolaryngology-specific journals had significantly fewer citations on average (6.8) than articles published in subscription-based journals (12.4, p < 0.0001). The last authors of articles published in subscription-based journals had significantly higher h-indexes (23.50) compared with the last authors of articles published in open-access journals (19.53, p < 0.0001). The first authors of articles published in open-access journals had similar h-indexes (10.26) as the first authors of articles published in subscription-based journals (10.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Articles published in open-access journals in otolaryngology were cited significantly less than those published in subscription-based journals. The h-index of the last authors was significantly lower in open-access journals; however, the h-index of the first authors was similar between open-access and subscription-based journals. As measured by citations, open-access publications do not yet appear to have the impact of subscription-based publications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 133:79-82, 2023.

The Hirsch-index in self-citation rates with articles in Medicine (Baltimore): Bibliometric analysis of publications in two stages from 2018 to 2021

BACKGROUND

The Hirsch-index (h-index) is a measure of academic productivity that incorporates both the quantity and quality of an author's output. However, it is still affected by self-citation behaviors. This study aims to determine the research output and self-citation rates (SCRs) in the Journal of Medicine (Baltimore), establishing a benchmark for bibliometrics, in addition to identifying significant differences between stages from 2018 to 2021.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database to obtain 17,912 articles published between 2018 and 2021 in Medicine (Baltimore). Two parts were carried out to conduct this study: the categories were clustered according to the medical subject headings (denoted by midical subject headings [MeSH] terms) using social network analysis; 3 visualizations were used (choropleth map, forest plot, and Sankey diagram) to identify dominant entities (e.g., years, countries, regions, institutes, authors, categories, and document types); 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to differentiate outputs between entities and stages, and the SCR with articles in Medicine (Baltimore) was examined. SCR, as well as the proportion of self-citation (SC) in the previous 2 years in comparison to SC were computed.

RESULTS

We found that South Korea, Sichuan (China), and Beijing (China) accounted for the majority of articles in Medicine (Baltimore); ten categories were clustered and led by 3 MeSh terms: methods, drug therapy, and complications; and more articles (52%) were in the recent stage (2020-2021); no significant difference in counts was observed between the 2 stages based on the top ten entities using the forest plot (Z = 0.05, P = .962) and 2-way ANOVA (F = 0.09, P = .76); the SCR was 5.69% (<15%); the h-index did not differ between the 2 collections of self-citation inclusion and exclusion; and the SC in the previous 2 years accounted for 70% of the self-citation exclusion.

CONCLUSION

By visualizing the characteristics of a given journal, a breakthrough was made. Subject categories can be classified using MeSH terms. Future bibliographical studies are recommended to perform the 2-way ANOVA and then compare the outputs from 2 stages as well as the changes in h-indexes between 2 sets of self-citation inclusion and exclusion.

Incidence of Scholarly Publication by Selected Content Experts Presenting at National Society Foot and Ankle Meetings From 2016 to 2020

Continuing medical education (CME) is an important element to maintain licensing requirements, enhance professional competence, and disseminate up to date, evidence-based, treatment recommendations. A key resource of CME are the 2 annual society meetings hosted by the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons (ACFAS) and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS). It is assumed that the selected speakers at these meetings are content experts, providing validated expertise on treatment recommendations, rather than anecdotal experience or opinion. Across all medical specialists, peer-reviewed publication(s) on a particular subject matter have long bestowed the ultimate validity of "expertise." The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of scholarly publication for invited speakers at the ACFAS and AOFAS annual meetings from 2016 to 2020, in relation to the topic they were selected to present. A review of invited lectures given at the ACFAS and AOFAS annual meetings from 2016 to 2020 was conducted, and lecturer demographics were categorized into predetermined content areas for assessment. Selected speakers were individually cross-referenced with content-specific peer-reviewed published literature, and overall h-index using Scopus. Topic and society specific comparisons were then made. Overall, 1028 lectures were identified during the temporal period. Only 300 (29.18%) presentations were given by a speaker with least one or more publication on the society specific lecture-topic presented. The greatest proportion of lecturers with content-specific publications was Charcot reconstruction (67.57%) followed by ankle fusion/replacement (55%). The average presenter h-index was greatest among total ankle replacement/ankle fusion (12.16 ± 6.90) and Charcot reconstruction (11.27 ± 7.10) content. The results of the present study illustrate a disparity of expertise among different content areas. While both meetings provide well-published lecturers, this study reveals areas for improvement.

A Bibliometric Study of the Pediatric Inguinal Hernia Publication Landscape from the Web of Science Database

Background

The number of times a research work gets cited by another article is one of the article-level metrics for assessing the quality of a research publication. Citation analysis by bibliometric review has been performed in several disciplines. The current study was aimed to systematically review the literature available on pediatric inguinal hernia since 1960 in terms of the 25 most cited articles in this field and analyze the bibliometric variables author and organizational collaborative patterns.

Methods

Thomson Reuters Web of Science citation indexing database and research platform were used to retrieve the most cited articles in pediatric inguinal hernia (PIH) using appropriate search strings. The characteristics (name of authors, the total number of authors, the title of publication, journal of publication, year of publication, etc.) of the 25 top-cited articles were recorded. Specific bibliographical parameters were derived and analyzed. Visualization maps were generated using VOSviewer software.

Results

The analysis revealed that the Journal of Pediatric Surgery was leading the choice of journal for publication. While most of the publications originated from the United States of America, Schier was the most influential author. Five of the eight top-productive authors are also the most connected.

Conclusion

Articles on laparoscopic repair in PIH have been heavily cited. Following the United States of America, Turkey stands out as the topmost productive country in PIH. The publications on PIH show that "collaboration" is the bridging force between productivity and influence on the academic community.

Research and academic output evaluation for career initiation or progression: Critical issues for Health Professionals

In current times, much stress is being laid on the evaluation of research productivity of researchers or faculty in addition to the academic qualifications and experience for the purposes of recruitment, promotion, and research grant funding. Over the years, several quantitative indices have been devised for this purpose. Some of these indices such as h-index, impact factor and e-index are being extensively used by research organizations, universities, accreditation bodies and funding agencies for basic scientists as well as health professionals. In the absence of any formal training, these parameters or their advantages and shortcomings may not be well understood by the health professionals, especially in the early stages of their careers and sometimes, even by the evaluators. A big unanswered question is the validity of the same criteria for health professionals as are applicable for the basic science researchers. Since health professional undertaking research assignments are neither adequately trained in basic research nor can they comprehend these indices well, the same yardstick to evaluate these two widely different groups of researchers often places the health professionals at a disadvantage.This paper aims to highlight certain vital issues related to the application of research productivity indicators for recruitment and career progression of health care professionals.

Research rating: Some technicalities

From time immemorial, the body of scientific knowledge has grown with incremental additions of research. Metrics-based research evaluation provides crucial information regarding research credibility that would be difficult to understand by means of individual expertise. h-index and its modifications give an approximate quantitative measure of research output. Furthermore, g-index, e-index, ħ-index and i10-index address various intricacies involving authorship. Altmetrics and Plum X metrics are newer usage metrics that put an additional weightage on the impact on social media, usage, capture and scholarly networking. Indirect evaluation of research can also be obtained from the Journal Impact Factor in which the research is published but with certain limitations. While the scientific community is still waiting for a unique one-stop solution based on a high-quality robust process to exert judgement on research, the Leiden Manifesto comprising ten principles for research assessment can act as a guiding tool for development of a comprehensive evaluation system.

The Author Impact Factor as a Metric to Evaluate the Impact of Neurosurgical Researchers

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the Author Impact Factor (AIF) as a useful metric and as a complement to the h-index among neurosurgical researchers.

METHODS

The 5-year AIF and h-index were compared among 3 groups of researchers: 1) the 100 most prolific of all time within general neurosurgical journals ("Experienced"), 2) the 100 most prolific during the 2015-2019 period within general neurosurgical journals ("Trending Group"), and 3) the 100 postgraduation year 7 neurosurgical residents with the highest h-index ("Amateur").

RESULTS

The Amateur group had a lower median h-index than the Experienced (6 vs. 55; P < 0.001) and Trending (6 vs. 43; P < 0.001) groups. The highest h-index of the Amateur group (24) was lower than the first quartile of the Experienced (46.25) and Trending (26.00) groups. The Amateur group had a lower median 5-year AIF than the Experienced (2.15 vs. 3.17; P < 0.001) and Trending (2.15 vs. 2.85; P = 0.02) groups. Unlike the h-index, the gap between the 5-year AIF distribution of the Amateur group and other groups was not profound. Although there was a positive correlation between the metrics in the 3 groups, they did not proxy for each other. For instance, while the h-index of some experienced authors that have not published recently was high, their AIFs were zero. Also, some Amateur authors published very impactful articles and had a high 5-year AIF. However, since their number of publications is inevitably low, their h-index were low.

CONCLUSIONS

The AIF provides intuitive and complementary information to the h-index regarding the research output of neurosurgical authors.

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.

Ranking United States University-Based General Surgery Programs on the Academic Achievement of Surgery Department Faculty

OBJECTIVE

Rankings of residency programs are highly influential and utilized by residency applicants. Existing ranking resources often use opaque criteria that may include bias or do not accurately represent the academic achievement of current faculty. This study aims to create an updated general surgery residency ranking list based on the academic achievements of their respective surgery department faculty members.

DESIGN

One hundred and six general surgery residency programs were selected from the American Medical Association Residency & Fellowship Programs Database. The names of faculty members affiliated with the departments of surgery were manually obtained. Lifetime and five-year h-indexes, a sum of grant awards from the National Institute of Health and Veterans Affairs, and a tally of journal editorial board positions were collected for the faculty. Metrics were compared among surgical departments, and the corresponding residency programs were ranked accordingly.

SETTING

The study evaluated university-based general surgery residency programs in the United States from 2017 to 2019 via assessing their respective institutions' departments of surgery.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 7568 faculty members were evaluated. Faculty were required to be full-time, clinical surgeons to meet inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Based on a composite of all measured criteria, the top overall surgery department was at the University of Michigan. Massachusetts General Hospital had the highest lifetime and five-year h-indexes. Brigham and Women's Hospital had the most National Institute of Health funding, and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center had the most Veterans Affairs funding. Washington University in St. Louis/Barnes Jewish Hospital had the most editorial board positions in their department.

CONCLUSIONS

The academic success of departments of surgery was evaluated to develop a ranking list of general surgery residency programs. Through utilizing standardized methods and several measures of academic achievement, this comprehensive general surgery residency classification system will allow residency applicants to make more informed decisions.

Research Productivity of Foot and Ankle Fellowship Faculty

BACKGROUND

Contribution to literature is critical for progress in the field of orthopaedics. No previous study has yet examined the academic productivity of foot and ankle surgery fellowship faculty.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the publishing productivity of foot and ankle fellowship faculty.

METHODS

Faculty and program characteristics of orthopaedic foot and ankle fellowship programs across the United States and Canada were collected from American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and program websites. Faculty publication productivity measures, including publications, number of publications in specific journals, number of citations, and Hirsch index (h-index) were gathered using the Scopus database.

RESULTS

A total of 48 AOFAS foot and ankle surgery fellowship programs were identified with an associated 185 faculty members. The mean number of publications per faculty member was 44.9 (SD = 53.0; range = 0-323), with a mean h-index of 11.9 (SD = 10.6; range = 0-54). A total of 144 (77.8%) academic-affiliated faculty had a significantly greater number of publications (P < .01), total citations (P < .05), and publications in Foot and Ankle International (P < .05), Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (P < .05), Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (P < .05), and Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (P < .05) compared to the 41 (22.2%) nonacademic faculty. There were no significant differences between measures of publication productivity between male and female faculty, except for maximum citations in a single article (67.1 vs 142.3; P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Academic-affiliated foot and ankle fellowship faculty have higher research productivity than nonacademic surgeons. The mean h-index of foot and ankle fellowship faculty was 11.9, which is lower than that reported in sports, joints, and spine fellowship faculty but higher than that reported for hand fellowship faculty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Bibliometric analysis of the literature relating to silicone hydrogel and daily disposable contact lenses

PURPOSE

Publication metrics are derived for the fields of silicone hydrogel (SH) and daily disposable (DD) contact lenses.

METHODS

A search of the Scopus database for papers in the fields of SH and DD contact lenses found 979 SH and 291 DD papers. Subject-specific h-indices for SH lenses (h_SH-index) and DD lenses (h_DD-index) were derived, in relation to five categories - authors, institutions, countries and journals - to serve as measures of impact. A short list of the most impactful entities was generated for each of the above five categories in the SH and DD fields.

RESULTS

A paper entitled "Soft contact lens polymers: An evolution" by Nicholson and Vogt was the most highly cited article (495 citations) in both SH and DD fields. The most impactful entities for the SH and DD fields were: authors - Lyndon Jones (h_SH = 33) and Philip Morgan (h_DD = 15); institutions - the University of Waterloo (h_SH = 37) and the University of New South Wales (h_DD = 15); countries - the United States (h_SH = 45) and the United Kingdom (h_DD = 24); and journals - Optometry and Vision Science (h_SH = 33) and Contact Lens and Anterior Eye (h_DD = 17). Overall, the SH field (h_SH = 64) is far more impactful than the DD field (h_DD = 34).

CONCLUSIONS

Impactful papers, authors, institutions, countries and journals in the SH and DD fields are identified. Optometry is revealed as the leading profession in relation to SH and DD publications.

NIH Funding, Research Productivity, and Scientific Impact: a 20-Year Study

BACKGROUND

The Research Project Grant (R01) is the oldest grant mechanism used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Receiving an R01 award is often taken as a sign of scientific success. We presented normative data on multiple productivity and impact metrics for a more objective assessment of funded grants' scientific success.

METHODS

All initial R01 grants awarded by NIH in the year 2000 were prospectively followed and evaluated using the numbers of publications and citations, as well as the h-indices at the grant level. We examined the variability, time trends, and relations among these metrics to better understand the funded projects' cumulative output and impact.

RESULTS

In the 20 years since initial funding, 4451 R01 grants generated a total of 55,053 publications. These publications were cumulatively cited 3,705,553 times over 736,811 citation years. The median number of publications was 8 (25^th, 75^th percentiles 4, 17) per grant for the entire 20-year duration. The median number of citations and the median h-index were 441 (25^th, 75^th percentiles 156, 1061) and 7 (25^th, 75^th percentiles 4, 13) per grant, respectively. The time courses of publication, citation, and accumulation of h-index were highly variable among the awarded grants. Although the metrics were correlated within an award, they reflected the grant's success in different domains.

CONCLUSION

Numbers of publications, citations, and h-indices vary greatly among funded R01 grants. When used together, these metrics provide a more complete picture of the productivity and long-term impact of a funded grant.

Trends in Academic Achievement Within Otolaryngology: Does Fellowship Training Impact Research Productivity?

BACKGROUND

Scholarly productivity and research output vary among different subspecialties. The h-index was developed as a more wholesome metric that measures an author's contribution to literature.

OBJECTIVE

Through a web-based cross-sectional analysis, we investigated the differences in scholarly impact and influence of both fellowship and nonfellowship-trained academic otolaryngologists in the United States. A secondary objective was to further understand the output among the larger fellowship fields.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis was performed for active faculty otolaryngologists. A total of 1704 otolaryngologists were identified as faculty in residency training programs across the United States. Their h-index and publication data were gathered using the Scopus database. The data were obtained in August 2019 and analysis occurred in January 2020.

RESULTS

Head and neck surgical faculty (25.5%) had the highest representation with fellowship experience. Among all faculty, there was no statistical difference in the overall average h-index scores when comparing faculty that had fellowship training with those who did not (12.6 and 12.1, respectively, P = .498). Rhinologists had the highest publication output per year at 3.90. Among fellowship-trained faculty, the highest average h-index and total publications were seen in head & neck surgery, while facial plastics had the lowest averages (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, fellowship-trained faculty had a greater but not significant scholarly impact than nonfellowship faculty. Furthermore, there were significant variations in output among the various subspecialties of otolaryngology. Growing fields, as academic rhinology, are continuing to flourish in robust research productivity and output. This study further demonstrates the potential, growing influence of fellowship training on research involvement and academic advancement within the otolaryngology subspecialties.

Scholarly Impact of Academic Ophthalmologists and Vision Scientists in Canada

Objective

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

Design

Cross-sectional survey.

Participants

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Otolaryngology Department and Society Leadership: Evaluation of Diversity in a Nationwide Study

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Diversity in medicine positively influences healthcare delivery. As we aim to make otolaryngology more diverse, it is essential to analyze our current leadership.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study.

METHODS

A total of 262 department chairs and chiefs, residency program directors, and assistant and associate directors from 117 otolaryngology residency programs as well as 92 society leaders from nine otolaryngology national societies from 2010 to 2020 in the United States are included in this study. The position, academic rank, name, gender, inferred race (based on name and image), and h-index are collected and recorded from publicly available data. Fisher's exact test, unpaired t tests, and analysis of variance tests are used.

RESULTS

The ethno-racial breakdown of all otolaryngology residency leaders is as follows: 78.63% non-Hispanic (NH) White, 16.03% NH Asian, 2.29% Middle Eastern, 1.91% NH Black, and 1.15% Latinx. Male gender is found to be a predictor of full professorship title (P < .0001) with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.066. NH White male is also a predictor of full professorship (P < .0001) with an OR 3.05. When comparing h-index, males and females differ (P < .0001) across all residency leadership positions. There is a higher h-index among full professors compared to non-full professors (P < .0001). The ethno-racial breakdown of society leaders is 84% NH White, 11% NH Asian, 2% NH Black, 2% Latinx, and 1% Middle Eastern.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, otolaryngology leadership has an under-representation of women and certain ethno-racial groups. Continued efforts should be made to diversify our specialty's leadership.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 2021.

Global optometrist research ranking derived from a science-wide author database of standardised citation indicators

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Publications in refereed scientific journals provide a rigorous research base that underpins clinical optometric practice. Leading optometrists who generate this literature can be identified and ranked using standardised citation indicators.

BACKGROUND

This work seeks to identify and rank all optometrists included in a Science-Wide author database of standardised citation indicators (S-W) and to compare this ranking with the Global Optometrist Top 200 Research Ranking (T200).

METHODS

A search was conducted for the names of all optometrists in the T200 who were included in the S-W, which is a world-wide listing of the top 2% of scientists in each of 174 subfield disciplines, ranked according to a composite citation indicator (c_ns) that excludes self-citations and corrects for multiple authorships and author order.

RESULTS

The names of 66 optometrists are found in the S-W. Of these, 58 are designated as working in the primary sub-field 'Ophthalmology & Optometry'; this listing, in rank-order of c_ns, is referred to as the 'S-W-derived Optometrist Research Ranking' (S-WORR). Australian optometrist Nathan Efron is ranked #1 in the S-WORR. The number (%) of optometrists in the S-WORR from each country is: the United States - 26 (45%), Australia - 12 (21%), the United Kingdom - 11 (19%), Canada - 5 (9%), Spain - 2 (3%), Hong Kong - 1 (2%) and South Africa - 1 (2%). The universities housing the equal highest number of optometrists in the S-WORR (five each) are the University of California, Berkeley, USA; the University of New South Wales, Australia; and Queensland University of Technology, Australia. There is a moderately strong correlation between T200 and S-WORR rankings (ρ = 0.6017, N = 58, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The S-WORR represents an elite cohort of optometrists who ought to be celebrated for their outstanding, leading and impactful contributions to optometric research.

The top 100 Twitter influencers in cardiology

Importance

Twitter represents a growing aspect of the social media experience and is a widely used tool for public education in the 21^st century. In the last few years, there has been concern about the dissemination of false health information on social media. It is therefore important that we assess the influencers of this health information in the field of cardiology.

Objective

We sought to identify the top 100 Twitter influencers within cardiology, characterize them, and examine the relationship between their social media activity and academic influence.

Design

Twitter topic scores for the topic search “cardiology” were queried on May 01, 2020 using the Right Relevance application programming interface (API). Based on their scores, the top 100 influencers were identified. Among the cardiologists, their academic h-indices were acquired from Scopus and these scores were compared to the Twitter topic scores.

Result

We found out that 88/100 (88%) of the top 100 social media influencers on Twitter were cardiologists. Of these, 63/88 (72%) were males and they practiced mostly in the United States with 50/87 (57%) practicing primarily in an academic hospital. There was a moderately positive correlation between the h-index and the Twitter topic score, r = +0.32 (p-value 0.002).

Conclusion

Our study highlights that the top ranked cardiology social media influencers on Twitter are board-certified male cardiologists practicing in academic settings in the US. The most influential on Twitter have a moderate influence in academia. Further research should evaluate the relationship between other academic indices and social media influence.

Sex Disparity Among Canadian Cardiologists in Academic Medicine: Differences in Scholarly Productivity and Academic Rank

Background

Women remain relatively underrepresented in all subspecialties of academic medicine. While sex disparity is prevalent in a number of specialties, the association between academic productivity and sex in academic cardiology has not been assessed in the Canadian context.

Methods

Academic faculty of accredited Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) programs were included from cardiology division websites across 17 universities. Cardiology faculty members’ names, academic ranks, leadership positions, and sex were obtained from each institutions’ website. The Elsevier database Scopus© was used to extract the Hirsch index (H-index), years of active research, and number of publications of each faculty member. The H-index was used as a metric of academic output and research productivity. Univariate regression was run with the H-Index as the outcome of interest, and multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with higher H-index.

Results

Sex was identified for 1,040 members, of whom 836 (80%) were male. Male members had higher numbers of publications (p <0.001). There was a trend for males in a leadership position to have a higher H-index (p = 0.07). Median H-index was lower for women (p = 0.02). Males across assistant and associate professor ranks had a higher H-index. Women achieving professor rank demonstrated greater productivity with a higher median H-index (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

There is a prevalent sex gap in academic cardiology with regard to scholarly productivity and academic achievement. Factors that may help narrow the sex gap need to be identified and corrective measures implemented to enhance sex equity.

Research productivity of radiation therapy physics faculty in the United States

Purpose

Research productivity metrics are important for decisions regarding hiring, retention, and promotion in academic medicine, and these metrics can vary widely among different disciplines. This article examines productivity metrics for radiation therapy physicists (RTP) in the United States.

Methods and materials

Database searches were performed for RTP faculty at US institutions that have RTP residencies accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP). Demographics, academic rank, number of publications, academic career length, Hirsch index (h‐index), m‐quotient, and history of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding as a principal investigator (PI) were collected for each RTP. Logistic regression was performed to determine the probability of academic rank as a function of h‐index and m‐quotient. Statistical tests used included the Wilcoxon ranked sum test and the Pearson χ² test.

Results

A total of 1038 faculty and staff were identified at 78 institutions with CAMPEP‐accredited residencies. The average RTP academic career duration is 13.5 years, with 46.7 total publications, h‐index of 10.7, and m‐quotient of 0.66. Additionally, 10.5% of RTP have a history of NIH funding as a PI. Large disparities were found in academic productivity of doctoral‐prepared physicists compared to those with a terminal master's degree. For differences in junior and senior faculty, statistical tests yielded significance in career duration, number of publications, h‐index, and m‐quotient. Gender disparities were identified in the overall distribution of RTP consistent with the membership of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Further gender disparities were found in the number of doctoral‐prepared RTP and physicists in senior faculty roles.

Conclusions

This manuscript provides objective benchmark data regarding research productivity of academic RTP. These data may be of interest to faculty preparing for promotion, and also to institutional leadership.

Factors predictive of an academic otolaryngologist's scholarly impact

Objectives

Describe the h index as a bibliometric that can be utilized to objectively evaluate scholarly impact. Identify which otolaryngology subspecialties are the most scholarly. Describe if NIH funding to one's choice of medical school, residency, or fellowship has any impact on one's scholarly output. Determine other factors predictive of an academic otolaryngologist's productivity.

Study design

Analysis of bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists.

Methods

Active grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to otolaryngology departments were ascertained via the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports database. Faculty listings from these departments were gleaned from departmental websites. H index was calculated using the Scopus database.

Results

Forty-seven otolaryngology programs were actively receiving NIH funding. There were 838 faculty members from those departments who had a mean h index of 9.61. Otology (h index 12.50) and head and neck (h index 11.96) were significantly (P < 0.0001) more scholarly than the rest of subspecialists. H index was significantly correlative (P < 0.0001) with degree of NIH funding at a given institution. H index was not significantly higher for those that attended medical school (P < 0.18), residency (P < 0.16), and fellowship (P < 0.16) at institutions with NIH funding to otolaryngology departments.

Conclusions

H index is a bibliometric that can be used to assess scholarly impact. Otology and head and neck are the most scholarly subspecialists within otolaryngology. NIH funding to an individual's medical school, residency, or fellowship of origin is not correlative with one's scholarly impact, but current institutional affiliation and choice of subspecialty are.

On the art and science of rigid contact lens fitting

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Examination of the literature can help answer the age-old question of the extent to which rigid contact lenses can be considered an art versus a science.

BACKGROUND

This work aims to assemble rigid contact lens-related publication metrics to identify the most impactful papers, authors, institutions, countries and journals.

METHODS

A search was undertaken of the Scopus database to identify rigid contact lens-related articles published since this lens type was first described in 1949. The 25 most highly cited papers were determined from the total list of 1,823 papers found. Rank-order lists by count were assembled for the 'top 25' in each of four categories: authors, institutions, countries and journals. A subject-specific rigid contact lens h-index (h_RL-index) was derived for each author, institution, country and journal to serve as a measure of impact in the field. A short list of the top constituents in each category were ranked by h_RL-index and tabulated.

RESULTS

The most highly cited paper (467 citations) is entitled 'Risk factors and prognosis for corneal ectasia after LASIK', by Randleman et al. Karla Zadnik (h_RL = 20; 32 papers) and Richard Hill (h = 10; 50 papers) are most impactful and prolific authors, respectively. The Ohio State University (h_RL = 24; 96 papers) is the most impactful and prolific institution and the United States (h_RL = 51; 680 papers) is the most impactful and prolific country. Optometry and Vision Science (h_RL = 30; 233 papers) is the most impactful journal.

CONCLUSIONS

Impactful authors, institutions, countries and journals in the field of rigid lenses are identified. Although there is perhaps an artistic element to rigid contact lens fitting, the solid literature base underpinning the field of rigid contact lenses revealed here belies the notion that rigid lenses fitting is more of an art than a science.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Landscape of Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts Grant Recipients Over the Past Decade

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the demographics of CORE grant recipients (Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts) over the last decade and evaluate disparity among recipients as compared with otolaryngology overall. To assess whether procurement of a grant predicts pursuit of an academic career.

STUDY DESIGN

Analysis of grant recipients' bibliometrics.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

METHODS

The list of recipients of grants from 2010 to 2019 was obtained from the website of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Demographics of recipients were collected through an internet search, including gender, race, residency program, and h-index. Recipients from 2010 were searched to determine current academic faculty rank. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare these factors with otolaryngology overall.

RESULTS

The distribution of gender among recipients over the last decade remained nearly constant, with no significant difference versus residents in otolaryngology (P > .05). However, there were significantly more female recipients when adjusted for gender differences in the field overall (P < .01). Asians were relatively overrepresented, while Black and Hispanic residents were underrepresented (P < .01). Many recipients (52.6%) trained at institutions recognized as the best training programs with reputations for quality research output. The h-index of recipients decreased over the last decade (P < .01). The h-index of duplicate winners was significantly higher than those of nonduplicate winners (P < .01). After adjusting for gender and rank, recipients were significantly more likely to hold academic positions (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

CORE grants are favorably distributed as related to gender and racial disparities, and recipients frequently go on to achieve high levels of academic success.

Scientific publications in internal medicine and family medicine: a comparative cross-sectional study in Swiss university hospitals

BACKGROUND

Family medicine is a relatively new academic medical discipline. We aimed to compare the main bibliometric indices of hospital-based senior physicians practicing internal medicine versus family medicine in Switzerland.

METHODS

We conducted this cross-sectional study in March 2020. We selected all hospital-based senior physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine in the six Swiss university hospitals. Using Web of Science, after removing from both groups of physicians the 5% with the highest number of publications, we extracted the number of publications, the number of publications per year, the number of citations, the number of citations per year, the number of citations per publication and the h-index. We compared the data between the two groups using negative binomial regressions and the proportion of physicians having at least one publication using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

We included 349 physicians in the study (internal medicine: 51%, men: 51%). The median number of publications was three [interquartile range (IQR) = 18], the median number of citations was nine (IQR = 158) and the median h-index was one (IQR = 5). All bibliometric indices were similar in both groups, as was the proportion of physicians having at least one publication (family medicine: 87% versus 82%, P = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no association between the bibliometric indices and the medical specialty. Further studies are needed to explore other important indicators of academic output, such as those more specifically assessing its quality and scientific importance.

Academic Productivity of United States Neurosurgeons Trained Abroad

BACKGROUND

Previous research in neurosurgery has examined academic productivity for U.S. medical graduates and residents. However, associations between scholarly output and international medical education, residency training, and fellowship training are scarcely documented.

METHODS

We identified 1671 U.S. academic neurosurgeons in 2020 using publicly available data along with their countries of medical school, residency, and fellowship training. Using Scopus, h-index, number of publications, and number of times publications were cited were compiled. Demographic, subspeciality, and academic productivity variables were compared between training locations using univariate analysis and multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

Of the current neurosurgery faculty workforce, 16% completed at least 1 component of their training abroad. Canada was the most represented international country in the cohort. Academic productivity for neurosurgeons with international medical school and/or international residency did not significantly differ from that of neurosurgeons trained in the United States. Neurosurgeons with ≥1 U.S. fellowships or ≥1 international fellowships did not have higher academic productivity than neurosurgeons without a fellowship. However, dual fellowship training in both domestic and international programs was associated with higher mean h-index (β = 6.00, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 10.98, P = 0.02), higher citations (β = 2092.0, 95% confidence interval 460.1 to 3724.0, P = 0.01), and a trend toward higher publications (β = 36.82, 95% confidence interval -0.21 to 73.85, P = 0.051).

CONCLUSIONS

Neurosurgeon scholarly output was not significantly affected by international training in medical school or residency. Dual fellowship training in both a domestic and an international program was associated with higher academic productivity.

Evaluating Scholars' Impact and Influence: Cross-sectional Study of the Correlation Between a Novel Social Media-Based Score and an Author-Level Citation Metric

BACKGROUND

The development of an author-level complementary metric could play a role in the process of academic promotion through objective evaluation of scholars' influence and impact.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the Healthcare Social Graph (HSG) score, a novel social media influence and impact metric, and the h-index, a traditional author-level metric.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of health care stakeholders with a social media presence randomly sampled from the Symplur database in May 2020. We performed stratified random sampling to obtain a representative sample with all strata of HSG scores. We manually queried the h-index in two reference-based databases (Scopus and Google Scholar). Continuous features (HSG score and h-index) from the included profiles were summarized as the median and IQR. We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) to evaluate the correlation between the HSG scores and h-indexes obtained from Google Scholar and Scopus.

RESULTS

A total of 286 (31.2%) of the 917 stakeholders had a Google Scholar h-index available. The median HSG score for these profiles was 61.1 (IQR 48.2), and the median h-index was 14.5 (IQR 26.0). For the 286 subjects with the HSG score and Google Scholar h-index available, the Spearman correlation coefficient ρ was 0.1979 (P<.001), indicating a weak positive correlation between these two metrics. A total of 715 (78%) of 917 stakeholders had a Scopus h-index available. The median HSG score for these profiles was 57.6 (IQR 46.4), and the median h-index was 7 (IQR 16). For the 715 subjects with the HSG score and Scopus h-index available, ρ was 0.2173 (P<.001), also indicating a weak positive correlation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a weak positive correlation between a novel author-level complementary metric and the h-index. More than a chiasm between traditional citation metrics and novel social media-based metrics, our findings point toward a bridge between the two domains.

The Lambert Function Should Be in the Engineering Mathematical Toolbox

Discovered well over two centuries ago and little used for long, the Lambert function has emerged in an increasing number of science and engineering applications in the last couple of decades. Here we present case studies relevant to the diverse interests of chemical engineers. We show how the Lambert function can be used for both analysis and computation. While some of these studies expound on prior literature results, the rest are new. We conjecture that if this tool becomes more widely known, many more instances of application will appear. Therefore, given its simplicity and usefulness, we would reasonably argue that the Lambert function should be included in the standard mathematical toolbox of chemical engineers.