Variation in academic neurosurgery departments' #neurosurgery social media influence

Background

Social media use is increasingly common among academic neurosurgery departments, but its relationship with academic metrics remains underexamined.

Methods

We examine the relationship between American academic neurosurgery departments' number of followers on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook and the following academic metrics: Doximity Residency rankings, US News & World Report rankings (USNWR) of their affiliated medical schools, and the amount of NIH funding of those schools.

Results

Few departments had disproportionate number of followers. A greater proportion of programs had Twitter accounts (88.9%) than had Instagram (72.2%) or Facebook (51.9%) accounts (p=0.0001). Programs identified as "Influencers" had more departmental NIH funding (p=0.044), more institutional NIH funding (p=0.035), better Doximity residency rankings (p=0.044), and better affiliated medical school rankings (p=0.002). Number of Twitter followers had the strongest correlation with academic metrics, yet only modest correlations were identified to departmental NIH funding (R=0.496, p=0.0001), institutional NIH funding (R=0.387, p=0.0072), Doximity residency rank (R=0.411, p=0.0020), and affiliated medical school ranking (R=0.545,p<0.0001). On multivariable regression, only being affiliated with a medical school in the top quartile on the USNWR rankings, rather than neurosurgery departmental metrics, predicted having more Twitter (OR=5.666, p=0.012) and Instagram (OR=8.33, p=0.009) followers.

Conclusion

American academic neurosurgery departments preferentially use Twitter over Instagram or Facebook. Their Twitter or Instagram presences are associated with better performance on traditional academic metrics. However, these associations are modest, suggesting that other factors contribute to a department's social media influence. A department's affiliated medical school may contribute to the department's social media brand.

Academic neurosurgery in Nepal: Present status and future directions

Introduction

The establishment of local neurosurgery training programs in Nepal has proven critical for the expansion of the discipline across the country. This paper aims to describe the evolution, current status, challenges, and future directions of academic neurosurgery in Nepal.

Research question

What is the current status and international standing of academic neurosurgery in Nepal?

Material and methods

Information related to growth and development in Nepal was obtained from universities and regulatory bodies in Nepal. Variables described are the current number of neurosurgeons, the number of neurosurgical centers and centers with accreditation for training, the description of existing training models, the number of graduates, and the contribution of Nepalese neurosurgeons to world literature.

Results

Formal neurosurgical training started in Nepal in 1999. Of 67 hospitals with neurosurgical facilities, 10 (14.9%) are accredited. Three training models (MCh, NBMS, and FCPS) currently exist. Of 116 neurosurgeons currently practicing in the country, 47 (40.5%) are homegrown. The contribution of the Nepalese neurosurgical community to the world includes the training of the first two Maldivian neurosurgeons and an increasing presence in world neurosurgical literature.

Conclusions

Although comparable to other countries with similar economies, Nepal still faces some challenges to the sustainability and further developments of Neurosurgery. Continued concerted efforts will help Nepalese neurosurgeons achieve the goal of securing self-reliance in neurosurgical education.

Current Trends in Subspecialty Fellowship Training for 1691 Academic Neurological Surgeons

OBJECTIVE

Neurosurgical subspecialty fellowship training has become increasingly popular in recent decades. However, few studies have evaluated recent trends in postgraduate subspecialty education. This study aims to provide a detailed cross-sectional analysis of subspecialty fellowship training completion trends and demographics among U.S. academic neurosurgeons.

METHODS

Academic clinical faculty (M.D. or D.O.) teaching at accredited neurosurgery programs were included. Demographic, career, and fellowship data were collected from departmental physician profiles and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) membership database. Relative citation ratio scores were retrieved using the National Institutes of Health iCite tool.

RESULTS

This study included 1691 surgeons (1756 fellowships) from 125 institutions. The majority (79.13%) reported fellowship training. Fellowship completion was more common among recent graduates (residency year >2000), as was training in multiple subspecialties (P < 0.0001). Spine was the most popular subspecialty (16.04%), followed by pediatrics (11.18%), and cerebrovascular (9.46%). The least common were trauma/critical care (2.52%) and peripheral nerve (1.26%). Spine, neuroradiology, and endovascular subspecialties grew in popularity over time. Pediatrics and spine were the most popular for females and males, respectively. Epilepsy and cerebrovascular had the most full professors, while endovascular and spine had the most assistant professors. Stereotactic/functional and epilepsy had the most Ph.Ds. Fellowship training correlated with higher weighted, but not mean, relative citation ratio scores among associate (P = 0.002) and full professors (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

There is an emerging proclivity for additional fellowship training among young neurosurgeons, often in multiple subspecialties. These findings are intended to help guide professional decision-making and optimize the delivery of postgraduate education.

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.

Neurosurgery in Ethiopia: A New Chapter and Future Prospects

BACKGROUND

Inequitable access to surgical care is most conspicuous in low-income countries (LICs), such as Ethiopia, where infectious diseases, malnutrition, and other maladies consume the lion's share of the available health resources. The aim of this article was to provide an update on the current state of neurosurgery in Ethiopia and identify targets for future development of surgical capacity as a universal health coverage component in this East African nation.

METHODS

Publicly available data included in this report were gathered from resources published by international organizations. A PubMed search was used for a preliminary bibliometric analysis of scholarly output of neurosurgeons in Ethiopia and other low-income countries. Statistical analysis was used to determine the correlation between the number of neurosurgeons and academic productivity.

RESULTS

Neurosurgeon density has increased >20-fold from 0.0022 to 0.045 neurosurgeons per 100,000 population between 2006 and 2020. The increase in neurosurgeons was strongly correlated with an increase in total publications (P < 0.001) and the number of new publications per year (P = 0.003). Despite recent progress, the availability of neuroimaging equipment remains inadequate, with 38 computed tomography scanners and 11 magnetic resonance imaging machines for a population of 112.07 million. The geographic distribution of neurosurgical facilities is limited to 12 urban centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Ethiopian neurosurgery exemplifies the profound effect of international partnerships for training local surgeons on progress in low-income countries toward improved neurosurgical capacity. Collaborations that focus on increasing the neurosurgical workforce should synchronize with efforts to enhance the availability of diagnostic and surgical equipment necessary for basic neurosurgical care.

Avoiding predatory publishing for early career neurosurgeons: what should you know before you submit?

BACKGROUND

Scientific research can offer the joy of discovery. For many graduating neurosurgeons, often, a seminar, class, or instructional module is their first and only formal exposure to the world of conducting research responsibly, to write down and report the results of such research. The pressure to publish scientific research is high, but any young neurosurgeon who is unaware of how predatory publishers operate can get duped by it and can lose their valuable and hard-fought research. Hence, we have attempted to provide an overview of all potentially predatory neurosurgery publications and provide some "red flags" to recognize them.

METHODS

A suspected list of predatory publications was collected via a thorough review of the Neurosurgery journals listed in 4 major so-called blacklists, i.e., Beall's list, Manca's list, Cabell's blacklist, and Strinzel blacklist and then cross-referenced with UGC CARE whitelist to remove any potential legitimate journals. All journals with a scope of the Neurosurgery publication were searched using terms in the search bar: "Neurosurgery", "Neuroanatomy", "Neuropathology", and "Neurological disorder/disease". Since all predatory journals claim to be open access, all possible types of open access journals on Scimago were also searched, and thus a comparison was possible in terms of publication cost and number of legitimate open access journals when compared with predatory ones. In addition, methodologies by which these journals penetrate legitimate indexes like PubMed was investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 46 predatory journals were found and were enlisted along with their publishers and web addresses. Sixty of the 360 Neurosurgery journals listed on Scimago were open access and the fee for the predatory journals was substantially lower (< $150) when compared with legitimate journals ($900-$3000). Six types of open access types exist while a total of 26 red flags in 7 stages of publication can be found in predatory journals. These journals have penetrated indexes by having similar names to legitimate journals and by publishing articles with external funding which mandate their indexing.

CONCLUSION

These 46 journals were defined as predatory by 4 major blacklists, and none of them was found in the UGC Care white list. They also fulfill the 26 red-flags that define a predatory journal. The blacklist detailed here may become redundant; hence "whenever in doubt" regarding a journal with "red-flags", the authors are advised to refer to whitelists to be on the safer side. Publishing in predatory journals leads to not only loss of valuable research but also discredits a researcher among his peers and can be hindrance in career progression. Some journals are even indexed on PubMed, and they have sophisticated webpages and high-quality online presentations.

An Analysis of Publication Productivity During Residency for 1506 Neurosurgical Residents and 117 Residency Departments in North America

BACKGROUND

Bibliometrics is defined as the study of statistical and mathematical methods used to quantitatively analyze scientific literature. The application of bibliometrics in neurosurgery continues to evolve.

OBJECTIVE

To calculate a number of publication productivity measures for almost all neurosurgical residents and departments within North America. These measures were correlated with survey results on the educational environment within residency programs.

METHODS

During May to June 2017, data were collected from departmental websites and Scopus to compose a bibliometric database of neurosurgical residents and residency programs. Data related to authorship value and study content were collected on all articles published by residents. A survey of residency program research and educational environment was administered to program directors and coordinators; results were compared with resident academic productivity.

RESULTS

The median number of publications in residency was 3; median h-index and Resident index were 1 and 0.17 during residency, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in academic productivity among male neurosurgical residents compared with females. The majority of articles published were tier 1 clinical articles. Residency program research support was significantly associated with increased resident productivity (P < .001). Scholarly activity requirements were not associated with increased resident academic productivity.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the most comprehensive bibliometric assessment of neurosurgical resident academic productivity during training to date. New benchmarks for individual and department academic productivity are provided. A supportive research environment for neurosurgical residents is associated with increased academic productivity, but a scholarly activity requirement was, surprisingly, not shown to have a positive effect.

Comparison of Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Metrics, and SCImago Journal Rank Indicator and h-index for Neurosurgical and Spinal Surgical Journals

BACKGROUND

In academic specialties such as neurosurgery, bibliometrics are often used to guide readers, academic institutes, and researchers to make objective assessment of journals. Recently, new indices have been developed to overcome the shortcomings of the widely used Impact Factor. The objective of our study was to investigate the correlations among 6 of the commonly used bibliometric indices (Impact Factor, SCImago Journal indicator, SCOPUS h-index, Google h-index, Eigenfactor, Article Influence Score) in neurosurgical and spinal surgical journals.

METHODS

A list of all neurosurgical and spinal surgical journals was compiled using the databases of SCOPUS, Clarivate Analytics (Thomson Reuters), and National Library of Medicine Catalog. Journals that are not surgically oriented, non-English journals, and nursing journals were excluded. Bivariate Spearman ranking correlation tests were performed.

RESULTS

Fifty-four journals were included, of which 14 were spine themed. High positive correlations were obtained among the bibliometric indices of neurosurgical (nonspinal) journals (P < 0.05 in all pairs). Median values were 1.54, 0.66, 53, 25, 0.0035, and 0.46 for Impact Factor, SCImago Journal rank indicator, SCOPUS h-index, Google h-index, Eigenfactor, and Article Influence Score, respectively. However, the correlations for spinal surgical journals were more variable, likely because of the small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the different mathematical basis among the citation-based bibliometric indices studied, they have strong correlations in ranking neurosurgical journals. This study provides evidence that the newer indices may be used interchangeably with the Impact Factor in this context, and they may, theoretically, mitigate some the shortcomings of the Impact Factor.