Associations Between Academic Rank and Advanced Bibliometric Indices Among United States Academic Radiologists

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.

Research Progress and Trends on Utilization of Lignocellulosic Residues as Supports for Enzyme Immobilization via Advanced Bibliometric Analysis

Lignocellulosic biomasses are used in several applications, such as energy production, materials, and biofuels. These applications result in increased consumption and waste generation of these materials. However, alternative uses are being developed to solve the problem of waste generated in the industry. Thus, research is carried out to ensure the use of these biomasses as enzymatic support. These surveys can be accompanied using the advanced bibliometric analysis tool that can help determine the biomasses used and other perspectives on the subject. With this, the present work aims to carry out an advanced bibliometric analysis approaching the main studies related to the use of lignocellulosic biomass as an enzymatic support. This study will be carried out by highlighting the main countries/regions that carry out productions, research areas that involve the theme, and future trends in these areas. It was observed that there is a cooperation between China, USA, and India, where China holds 28.07% of publications in this area, being the country with the greatest impact in the area. Finally, it is possible to define that the use of these new supports is a trend in the field of biotechnology.

Evaluation of the i10-Index in Plastic Surgery Research and its Correlation with Altmetric Attention Scores and Traditional Author Bibliometrics: An Evaluation of a Single Journal

Background  Although the Hirsch index (H-index) has become one of the most accepted measures of scholarly output, its limitations have led to the proposition of newer alternative metrics. The i10-index, notable for being easy to calculate and free to access, has potential, given its association with the power and ubiquity of Google. This study aims to evaluate the utility of the i10-index for plastic surgery research by examining its relationship with author bibliometrics and article metrics, including the H-index and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Methods  Article metrics were extracted from articles published in the highest impact plastic surgery journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, over a 2-year period (2017-2019). Senior author bibliometrics, including i10-index and H5-index, were obtained from Web of Science. Correlation analysis was performed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r s ). Results  A total of 1,668 articles were published and 971 included. Senior author i10-index measurements demonstrated moderate correlation with times emailed (r s  = 0.47), and weak correlations with H5-index, total publications, and sum of times cited with and without self-citations. The H5-index correlated very strongly with total publications (r s  = 0.91) and sum of times cited (both r s  = 0.97), moderately with average citations per item (r s  = 0.66) and times emailed (r s  = 0.41), and weakly with number of citations by posts, AAS, and times tweeted. Conclusions  Although the i10 strongly correlates with the H5-index, it fails to prove superior to the H5-index in predicting the impact of specific research studies in the field of plastic surgery.

The top 100 most-cited articles on adult spinal deformity: The most popular topics are still sagittal plane parameters and complications

Purpose

This study aimed to summarize the characteristics of the 100 most-cited articles on adult spinal deformity (ASD) and to analyze past and current research hotspots and trends.

Methods

Literature searches (from inception to 28 April 2022) using Web of Science databases were conducted to identify ASD-related articles. The top 100 most-cited articles were collected for further analysis. Meanwhile, author keywords from articles published in the last 5 years were selected for further analysis.

Results

The top 100 most-cited articles on ASD were selected from 3,354 papers. The publication year ranged from 1979 to 2017, and all papers were written in English. The citation count among them ranged from 100 to 1,145, and the mean citation number was 215.2. The foremost productive first author was Schwab F. University of Washington had the largest number of publications. The United States of America had the largest number of published articles (n = 84) in this field. Spine was the most popular journal. Complications were the most studied themes. The visualization analysis of author keywords from the literature in the recent 5 years showed that complications, sagittal plane parameters, and surgical techniques are still the research hotspots, and minimally invasive surgery will continue to develop rapidly.

Conclusion

Based on a comparative analysis of the results of bibliometric and visualization, complications and sagittal plane parameters are still the major topics of research at present and even later, and minimally invasive surgery has a growth trend in this field of ASD.

Career Research Performance Among Radiology Early Career Grant Recipients Compared With National Institutes of Health K Award Recipients

OBJECTIVE

To compare academic and demographic metrics among recipients of three major early career radiology, interventional radiology, and radiation oncology grants to National Institutes of Health (NIH) K awardees at the time the grants were awarded and then over the course of their careers.

METHODS

Radiologists who received the RSNA Research Scholar Grant, General Electric Radiology Research Academic Fellowship (GERRAF), American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) Scholar Award, or NIH Career Development (K) Award before January 1, 2015, were included. Research metrics at time of grant award (eg, publications) and subsequent scholarly productivity (eg, academic rank, h-index, NIH funding) were recorded until April 2020. Wilcoxon ranked-sum, chi-square, logistic regression, and standard least-square regression were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

There were 279 recipients: 48 K Award, 115 RSNA Research Scholar Grant, 36 ARRS, and 80 GERRAF. At the time of grant awarding, GERRAF recipients were less likely to have an MD-PhD degree (odds ratio [OR]: 0.36; P = .002) and were more likely to be women (OR: 1.55; P = .042) than K Award recipients. Similarly, recipients of the ARRS (OR: 2.87; P = .010) and GERRAF (OR: 3.19; P = .002) were more likely to have a master's degree. Academic rank, leadership positions, and R01 funding were significant predictors of h-index and total publications over time. Academic rank and the GERRAF were significant predictors of subsequent NIH funding duration but there were no significant predictors of NIH funding amount.

CONCLUSIONS

Early career radiology awards, specifically the GERRAF, provide support for female and non-PhD investigators and result in comparable academic performance metrics to NIH K Award recipients.

Current State of Bibliometric Research on the Scholarly Activity of Academic Radiologists

In this review article, we discuss the literature pertaining to the bibliometric analysis of academic radiologists' scholarly activity in order to identify current trends, knowledge gaps, and potential future directions. Current research provides cross-sectional analyses of bibliometrics on three main themes: academic ranking, gender disparity, and research funding. The most commonly used parameters are the publication and the citation counts, the h-index and the number of years in academia. The h-index correlates positively with academic ranking and, in the case of editorial board members, with the journal's impact factor. Scholars who have secured National Institutes of Health funding tend to have higher h-indexes than those who have not. Whereas gender balance has been achieved in medical school and in several medical specialties, women remain significantly fewer than men in most areas of radiology. The underrepresentation of women is particularly noticeable at higher academic ranks and in leadership positions, suggesting that significant barriers to female radiologists' career advancement exist. Scholarly productivity of radiology residents and the impact of research on academic productivity are subjects that have received less attention in the published literature. Future studies should focus on whether bibliometric parameters can be used as reliable measurements of scholarly activity to help determine appointments, promotions and grant allocations, and to assess interventions that promote gender parity.

Publication Productivity and Academic Rank in Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Academic medical faculty members are assessed on their research productivity for hiring, promotion, grant, and award decisions. The current work systematically reviews, synthesizes, and analyzes the available literature on publication productivity by academic rank across medical specialties.

METHOD

The authors searched PubMed for medical literature, including observational studies, published in English from 2005 to 2018, using the term "h-index," on July 1, 2018. Studies had to report on h-indices for faculty in academic medicine and, if available, other publication metrics, including number of citations, number of publications, and m-indices, stratified by academic rank. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to perform meta-analyses for the primary (h-index) and secondary (m-index) outcome measures.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 21 studies. The meta-analysis included 19 studies and data on 14,567 academic physicians. Both h- and m-indices increased with academic rank. The weighted random effects summary effect sizes for mean h-indices were 5.22 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.21-6.23, n = 6,609) for assistant professors, 11.22 (95% CI: 9.65-12.78, n = 3,508) for associate professors, 20.77 (95% CI: 17.94-23.60, n = 3,626) for full professors, and 22.08 (95% CI: 17.73-26.44, n = 816) for department chairs. Mean m-indices were 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40-0.65, n = 1,653) for assistant professors, 0.72 (95% CI: 0.58-0.85, n = 883) for associate professors, 0.99 (95% CI: 0.75-1.22, n = 854) for full professors, and 1.16 (95% CI: 0.81-1.51, n = 195) for department chairs.

CONCLUSIONS

Both h- and m-indices increase with successive academic rank. There are unique distributions of these metrics among medical specialties. The h- and m-indices should be used in conjunction with other measures of academic success to evaluate faculty members for hiring, promotion, grant, and award decisions.

Factors associated with academic rank among chronic pain medicine faculty in the USA

Background

Numerous factors are considered in the academic promotion of pain medicine physicians. In this study, we investigated the importance of research productivity, career duration, leadership, and gender on attaining professorship in chronic pain medicine fellowship programs in the USA.

Methods

We identified 98 pain fellowship programs in the American Medical Association Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Faculty demographics and institutional characteristics were obtained from institutional websites, and h-index (number of publications (h) cited at least h times) and m-index (h-index divided by research career duration) were calculated from Scopus. A nested mixed effect hierarchical modeling was used to determine factors that were associated with attaining professorship.

Results

A total of 696 chronic pain medicine faculty members from 98 academic pain fellowship programs were identified, of whom 74.7% were males. For the 15.5% who were full professors, the median h-index was 16.5 (6.0 to 30.0), the median career duration was 20.5 (16.0 to 27.0) years, and the median m-index was 0.7 (0.3 to 1.3). In an adjusted analysis, the top quartile (compared with bottom) h-index (OR 6.27; 95% CI: 2.11 to 18.59), publication citations (OR 1.13; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.21), division chief position (OR 3.72; 95% CI: 1.62 to 8.50), institutions located in the western region (OR 3.81; 95% CI: 1.52 to 9.57), and graduating from a foreign medical school (OR 1.98; 95% CI: 1.10 to 3.92) were independently associated with attaining professorship (p<0.05), but gender was not (p=0.71).

Conclusions

Our study shows that, higher h-index, publication citations, division chief position, affiliation at a lower tier medical school, and location in the Western region were independently associated with full professorship, whereas gender was not. The identified variables for professorship may be considered as factors in faculty promotions.

Scholarly Activities and Indices Among Academic Endovascular Specialists: A Comparative Analysis Between Interventional Radiologists and Vascular Surgeons

PURPOSE

To report scholarly metrics amongst academic endovascular specialists.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Faculty pages identified interventional radiologists and vascular surgeons at academic institutions. Members were classified as assistant, associate, or full professors. Scopus was used to extract publication and citation records. Data extracted included: number of publications, number of citations, h-index, i-10 index, hc-index, m-quotient, e-index, and g-index.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy six interventional radiologists and 266 vascular surgeons were included. Mean publications for interventional radiology assistant, associate, and full professors were 17.81, 48.77, and 131.65 and the citation counts were 311.45, 1051.08, and 3981.71, respectively. Mean publications for vascular surgeon assistant, associate, and full professors were 24.00, 48.7, and 161.37 and the citation counts were 414.33, 1147.89, and 5747.00, respectively. Multivariable proportional odds model for interventional radiologists showed a positive correlation between the academic rank and publication count (c = 0.028), h-index (c = 0.090), i10-index (c = 0.014), hc-index (c = 0.052), e-index (c = 0.016), and g-index (0.037). There was a negative correlation between m-quotient (c = -1.745) and citations (c = -0.001) and academic rank. Multivariable proportional odds model for vascular surgeons showed a positive correlation between the academic rank and publication count (c = 0.037) and g-index (c = 0.083). There was a negative correlation between m-quotient (c = -2.232) and hc-index (c = -0.065) and academic rank.

CONCLUSION

Citation count and h-index are positively correlated while m-quotient is negatively correlated with academic performance for endovascular specialists.

Use of the g-index for assessment of citation-based scholarly activity of United States radiation oncology residents and subsequent choice of academic versus private practice career

Introduction

The Hirsch index (h-index) evaluates citation-based scholarly activity, but has limited ability to acknowledge those publishing a smaller number of manuscripts with exceedingly high citations. The g-index addresses this limitation by assessing the largest number of manuscripts (g) by an author cited at least (g × g) times, but has yet to be applied to radiation oncology resident productivity.

Methods

A list of recent radiation oncology resident graduates (comprising 86% of the 2016 graduating class) and their post-residency career choice was compiled. The Scopus bibliometric citation database was searched to collect and calculate g-index data for each resident.

Results

The mean g-index score for all resident graduates was 7.16. Residents with a PhD had significantly higher g-index scores (11.97 versus 5.80; p < 0.01), while there was no statistically significant difference in g-index scores between male and female residents. Residents choosing academic careers had higher g-index scores than those choosing private practice (9.47 versus 4.99; p < 0.01). Programs graduating at least three residents produced significantly higher g-index scores/resident than those graduating two residents, and while comprising only 25% of programs and 45% of residents, produced 60% of academic careers (p < 0.02).

Conclusion

Radiation oncology resident graduates published on average a minimum of seven manuscripts cited at least 49 times. PhD-degree graduates had significantly higher g-index scores, as did residents choosing academic over private practice careers. There was no significant gender-related difference in g-index score regardless of career choice. The majority of academic careers are produced from programs graduating at least three residents.

Multicenter Research Studies in Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Here we review the current state of multicenter radiology research (MRR), and utilize a survey of experienced researchers to identify common advantages, barriers, and resources to guide future investigators.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Association of University Radiologists established a Radiology Research Alliance task force, Multi-center Research Studies in Radiology, composed of 12 society members to review MRR. A REDCap survey was designed to gain more insight from experienced researchers. Recipients were authors identified from a PubMed database search, utilizing search terms "multicenter" or "multisite" and "radiology." The survey included investigator background information, reasons why, barriers to, and resources that investigators found helpful in conducting or participating in MRR.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 23 of 80 recipients (29%), the majority (76%) of whom served as a primary investigator on at least one MRR project. Respondents reported meeting collaborators at national or international (74%) and society (39%) meetings. The most common perceived advantages of MRR were increased sample size (100%) and improved generalizability (91%). External funding was considered the most significant barrier to MRR, reported by 26% of respondents. Institutional funding, setting up a central picture archiving and communication system, and setting up a central database were considered a significant barrier by 30%, 22%, and 22% of respondents, respectively. Resources for overcoming barriers included motivated staff (74%), strong leadership (70%), regular conference calls (57%), and at least one face-to-face meeting (57%).

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers to MRR include funding and establishing a central database and a picture archiving and communication system. Upon embarking on an MRR project, forming a motivated team who meets and speaks regularly is essential.