Ranking hepatologists: which Hirsch's h-index to prevent the "e-crise de foi-e"?

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.

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

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate associations between traditional and advanced bibliometric indices with academic rank for radiologists in the United States.

METHODS

Faculty web pages were searched to classify 538 members of the Association of University Radiologists as assistant (n = 212), associate (n = 128), or full (n = 198) professors. Radiologists' publication and citation records were extracted from Scopus to compute the following indices: publication count, citation count, h-index, i-10 index, h_c-index, m-quotient, e-index, and g-index. Analysis of variance, multivariable logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were performed.

RESULTS

All indices were significantly different among the three groups (P ≤.001), progressively increasing with increasing rank (eg, mean publication count of 17, 41, and 128 among assistant, associate, and full professors, respectively; mean citation count of 205, 687, and 3622, respectively; mean h-index of 5, 11, and 27, respectively). At multivariable analysis, the h-index (reflecting publications and citations) was a strong significant independent positive predictor of associate (β=+0.32, P <.001) or full professor (β=+0.26, P <.001) status, whereas the m-quotient (adjusted h-index that is greater for more rapid publication) was a strong significant independent negative predictor of associate (β=-1.87, P = .009) or full professor (β =-4.97, P <.001) status. The models exhibited moderate goodness-of-fit (r² = 0.534-0.655; P <.001). The model for predicting at least associate professor achieved area under the curve 0.876 (sensitivity 74.6%, specificity 88.8%). The model for predicting full professor achieved area under the curve 0.925 (sensitivity 85.5%, specificity 86.1%).

CONCLUSION

When controlling for the h-index, more rapid publication, as indicated by the m-quotient, was negatively associated with radiologists' academic rank, indicating the additional influence of career duration in promotions decisions.

Demographics and Scholarly Productivity of American Board of Anesthesiology Volunteers: Results of an Internet-Based Bibliometric Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) has been responsible for certification of anesthesiologists since 1938. Selected ABA diplomates provide their expertise to write the ABA's written and oral examinations and to administer the oral examination required for primary certification. The demographics, administrative and educational duties, and scholarly productivity of ABA volunteers and their dependence on subspecialty certification, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) credentials, and grant funding are unknown.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Internet analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

ABA volunteers who participated in the 2015 primary certification examinations identified from the 2016 issue of ABA News.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The 2016 issue of ABA News was downloaded from the public ABA website and was used to identify all volunteers who participated in any aspect of the 2015 primary certification process. Each individual's practice type, faculty rank if applicable, and affiliation were identified using Google with the keyword "anesthesiology." The practice location, time, and interval after original ABA certification; additional ABA subspecialty certification; the number of publications and citations; publication rate; citations per publication; and the H-, M-, and i-10 indices were obtained using the ABA and Scopus databases. Credentials in TEE were identified for each individual using the National Board of Echocardiography database. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) funding for each volunteer was evaluated using NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools and the FAER alumni databases, respectively. Three hundred ninety-three ABA volunteers were identified and analyzed. Three hundred ten individuals currently hold academic appointments (83.5%), whereas 83 (16.5%) hold private practice or military positions. Sixty-seven volunteers have major administrative roles (eg, dean, chief executive officer, associate or assistant dean, chair, vice chair). Thirty-five individuals are program directors of anesthesiology residencies or fellowships. Volunteers published 10,072 manuscripts that have been cited 194,835 times. Volunteers also received 51 NIH grants and 36 FAER grants. The median H-, M-, and i10-indices of volunteers were 4, 0, and 3, respectively. Scholarly productivity was dependent on academic rank, career duration, additional degrees, and extramural funding, but not on practice location, subspecialty certification, TEE credentials, or sex.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicated that ABA volunteers are leaders in anesthesiology with established records of administrative, educational, and scholarly accomplishment.

Associations Between NIH Funding and Advanced Bibliometric Indices Among Radiological Investigators

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Whereas data support the h index (reflecting both publications and citations) as an indicator of academic productivity, other advanced bibliometric indices aiming to address shortcomings of the h index remain poorly studied. Our objective was to compare the associations between bibliometric indices and total National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding among investigators within U.S. academic radiology departments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

NIH grant funding amounts for 400 NIH-funded investigators within radiology departments were obtained from Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research. Investigators' publications and associated citations were identified using Scopus. Indices computed for each investigator included: publication count, citation count, h index, i-10 index, hc index (h index adjusted for recency of publications), m quotient (h index adjusted for career duration), and e index and g index (both account for highly cited articles). Spearman correlations were performed between indices and funding. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify significant independent predictors of funding.

RESULTS

For MD investigators: the indices exhibited no-to-weak correlations with funding (r = 0.173-0.387); m quotient exhibited the largest correlation and was the only significant (albeit weak) independent predictor of funding (P = 0.011). For PhD investigators: correlation with funding was weak for m quotient (r = 0.323), although moderate for other indices (r = 0.518-0.568); publication count exhibited highest correlation; publication count (P < 0.001) and hc index (P = 0.024) were significant independent predictors of funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Bibliometric indices were more strongly associated with grant funding for PhD than for MD radiology investigators, with publication count exhibiting the strongest association in the latter group. Time-weighted adjustments, as reflected by the m quotient and hc index, may improve efforts to predict funding using bibliometrics.

Understanding bibliometric parameters and analysis

Bibliometric parameters have become an important part of modern assessment of academic productivity. These parameters exist for the purpose of evaluating authors (publication count, citation count, h-index, m-quotient, hc-index, e-index, g-index, i-10 [i-n] index) and journals (impact factor, Eigenfactor, article influence score, SCImago journal rank, source-normalized impact per paper). Although in recent years there has been a proliferation of bibliometric parameters, the true meaning and appropriate use of these parameters is generally not well understood. Effective use of existing and emerging bibliometric tools can aid in assessment of academic productivity, including readiness for promotions and other awards. However, if not properly understood, the data can be misinterpreted and may be subject to manipulation. Familiarity with bibliometric parameters will aid in their effective implementation in the review of authors-whether individuals or groups-and journals, as well as their possible use in the promotions review process, maximizing the effectiveness of bibliometric analysis.

Scholarly Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding of Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research Grant Recipients

Background:

The Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) grant program provides fellows and junior faculty members with grant support to stimulate their careers. The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of recipients of FAER grants since 1987.

Methods:

Recipients were identified in the FAER alumni database. Each recipient’s affiliation was identified using an Internet search (keyword “anesthesiology”). The duration of activity, publications, publication rate, citations, citation rate, h-index, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for each recipient were obtained using the Scopus® (Elsevier, USA) and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools® (National Institutes of Health, USA) databases.

Results:

Three hundred ninety-seven individuals who received 430 FAER grants were analyzed, 79.1% of whom currently hold full-time academic appointments. Recipients published 19,647 papers with 548,563 citations and received 391 NIH grants totaling $448.44 million. Publications, citations, h-index, the number of NIH grants, and amount of support were dependent on academic rank and years of activity (P &lt; 0.0001). Recipients who acquired NIH grants (40.3%) had greater scholarly output than those who did not. Recipients with more publications were also more likely to secure NIH grants. Women had fewer publications and lower h-index than men, but there were no gender-based differences in NIH funding. Scholarly output was similar in recipients with MD and PhD degrees versus those with MD degrees alone, but recipients with MD and PhD degrees were more likely to receive NIH funding than those with MDs alone.

Conclusion:

Most FAER alumni remain in academic anesthesiology and have established a consistent record of scholarly output that appears to exceed reported productivity for average faculty members identified in previous studies.

Gender differences in promotion and scholarly impact: an analysis of 1460 academic ophthalmologists

OBJECTIVES

In recent years, gender differences in academic promotion have been documented within surgical fields. To the best of our knowledge, gender discrepancies in association with scholarly productivity have not been well assessed among academic ophthalmologists. Because research productivity is strongly associated with academic career advancement, we sought to determine whether gender differences in scholarly impact, measured by the h-index, exist among academic ophthalmologists.

DESIGN

Academic rank and gender were determined using faculty listings from academic ophthalmology departments. h-index and publication experience (in years) of faculty members were determined using the Scopus database.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

RESULTS

From assistant professor through professor, the h-index increased with subsequent academic rank (p < 0.001), although between chairpersons and professors no statistical difference was found (p > 0.05). Overall, men had higher h-indices (h = 10.4 ± 0.34 standard error of mean) than women (h = 6.0 ± 0.38 standard error of mean), a finding that was only statistically significant among assistant professors in a subgroup analysis. Women were generally underrepresented among senior positions. When controlling for publication range (i.e., length of time publishing), men had higher h-indices among those with 1 to 10 years of publication experience (p < 0.0001), whereas women had scholarly impact equivalent to and even exceeding that of men later in their careers.

CONCLUSION

Women in academic ophthalmology continue to be underrepresented among senior faculty. Although women surpass men in scholarly productivity during the later stages of their careers, low scholarly impact during the earlier stages may impede academic advancement and partly explain the gender disparity in senior academic positions.

Do AAO-HNSF CORE Grants Predict Future NIH Funding Success?

OBJECTIVE

To determine (1) whether academic otolaryngologists who have received an American Academy of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts (CORE) grant are more likely to procure future National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding; (2) whether CORE grants or NIH Career Development (K) awards have a stronger association with scholarly impact.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Historical cohort.

METHODS

Scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index, publication experience, and prior grant history, were determined for CORE-funded and non-CORE-funded academic otolaryngologists. All individuals were assessed for NIH funding history.

RESULTS

Of 192 academic otolaryngologists with a CORE funding history, 39.6% had active or prior NIH awards versus 15.1% of 1002 non-CORE-funded faculty (P < .0001). Higher proportions of CORE-funded otolaryngologists have received K-series and R-series grants from the NIH (P-values < .05). K-grant recipients had higher h-indices than CORE recipients (12.6 vs 7.1, P < .01). Upon controlling for rank and experience, this difference remained significant among junior faculty.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher proportion of academic otolaryngologists with prior AAO-HNSF CORE funding have received NIH funding relative to their non-CORE-funded peers, suggesting that the CORE program may be successful in its stated goals of preparing individuals for the NIH peer review process, although further prospective study is needed to evaluate a "cause and effect" relationship. Individuals with current or prior NIH K-grants had greater research productivity than those with CORE funding history. Both cohorts had higher scholarly impact values than previously published figures among academic otolaryngologists, highlighting that both CORE grants and NIH K-grants awards are effective career development resources.

Comparison of plaintiff and defendant expert witness qualification in malpractice litigation in neurological surgery

Object

Expert witnesses provide a valuable societal service, interpreting complex pieces of evidence that may be misunderstood by nonmedical laypersons. The role of medical expert witness testimony and the potential professional repercussions, however, have been controversial in the medical community. The objective of the present analysis was to characterize the expertise of neurological surgeons testifying as expert witnesses in malpractice litigation.

Methods

Malpractice litigation involving expert testimony from neurological surgeons was obtained using the WestlawNext legal database. Data pertaining to duration of a surgeon's practice, scholarly impact (as measured by the h index), practice setting, and the frequency with which a surgeon testifies were obtained for these expert witnesses from various online resources including the Scopus database, online medical facility and practice sites, and state medical licensing boards.

Results

Neurological surgeons testifying in 326 cases since 2008 averaged over 30 years of experience per person (34.5 years for plaintiff witnesses vs 33.2 for defense witnesses, p = 0.35). Defense witnesses had statistically higher scholarly impact than plaintiff witnesses (h index = 8.76 vs 5.46, p < 0.001). A greater proportion of defense witnesses were involved in academic practice (46.1% vs 24.4%, p < 0.001). Those testifying on behalf of plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times than those testifying on behalf of defendants (20.4% vs 12.6%).

Conclusions

Practitioners testifying for either side tend to be very experienced, while those testifying on behalf of defendants have significantly higher scholarly impact and are more likely to practice in an academic setting, potentially indicating a greater level of expertise. Experts for plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times. Surgical societies may need to clarify the necessary qualifications and ethical responsibilities of those who choose to testify.

Assessing National Institutes of Health funding and scholarly impact in neurological surgery

Object

Research productivity is increasingly important in academic neurological surgery and can be measured through a variety of methods, such as publications, objective bibliometrics, and securing external grant support. The authors' objectives were to determine whether there is an association between scholarly impact, as measured by the h index, and successful National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding awarded to faculty in neurological surgery departments.

Methods

Primary investigators receiving National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards from Fiscal Years 2011–2013 were organized by academic rank, terminal degree, and their h index, as calculated from the Scopus database. These data were also obtained for nonfunded faculty from 15 randomly selected departments for comparison, and the average h index for each group was calculated.

Results

National Institutes of Health–funded faculty had higher average h indices than their nonfunded colleagues (23.6 vs 10.8, p < 0.0001), a finding that persisted upon controlling for academic rank. The mean h index increased with successive academic rank in both cohorts; greater funding totals were seen with successive academic position (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.05). National Institutes of Health–funded MDs had higher h indices than their PhD colleagues (p = 0.04), although funding levels did not differ significantly. There was a trend of increasing h index with higher NIH-funding ranges (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The authors' findings demonstrate a strong relationship between scholarly impact and securing NIH funding among faculty in academic neurosurgical departments. Faculty receiving a greater amount of funding tended to have a higher h index. Mean scholarly impact, as measured by the h index, increased with successive academic rank among both NIH-funded and nonfunded faculty, suggesting that this bibliometric may have utility as an adjunct in the academic appointment and promotion process in academic neurological surgery.

A gender-based comparison of academic rank and scholarly productivity in academic neurological surgery

The number of women pursuing training opportunities in neurological surgery has increased, although they are still underrepresented at senior positions relative to junior academic ranks. Research productivity is an important component of the academic advancement process. We sought to use the h-index, a bibliometric previously analyzed among neurological surgeons, to evaluate whether there are gender differences in academic rank and research productivity among academic neurological surgeons. The h-index was calculated for 1052 academic neurological surgeons from 84 institutions, and organized by gender and academic rank. Overall men had statistically higher research productivity (mean 13.3) than their female colleagues (mean 9.5), as measured by the h-index, in the overall sample (p<0.0007). When separating by academic rank, there were no statistical differences (p>0.05) in h-index at the assistant professor (mean 7.2 male, 6.3 female), associate professor (11.2 male, 10.8 female), and professor (20.0 male, 18.0 female) levels based on gender. There was insufficient data to determine significance at the chairperson rank, as there was only one female chairperson. Although overall gender differences in scholarly productivity were detected, these differences did not reach statistical significance upon controlling for academic rank. Women were grossly underrepresented at the level of chairpersons in this sample of 1052 academic neurological surgeons, likely a result of the low proportion of females in this specialty. Future studies may be needed to investigate gender-specific research trends for neurosurgical residents, a cohort that in recent years has seen increased representation by women.

Impact of mentoring medical students on scholarly productivity

BACKGROUND

Our objectives were to evaluate collaboration with medical students and other nondoctoral authors, and assess whether mentoring such students influences the academic productivity of senior authors.

METHODS

Six issues of the Laryngoscope and International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology (IFAR) were examined for the corresponding author of each manuscript, and whether any students were involved in authorship. The h-index of all corresponding authors was calculated using the Scopus database to compare the scholarly impact of authors collaborating with students and those collaborating exclusively with other physicians or doctoral-level researchers.

RESULTS

Of 261 Laryngoscope manuscripts, 71.6% had exclusively physician or doctoral-level authors, 9.2% had "students" (nondoctoral-level authors) as first authors, and another 19.2% involved "student" authors. Corresponding values for IFAR manuscripts were 57.1%, 6.3%, and 36.5%. Corresponding authors who collaborated with students had higher scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index, than those collaborating exclusively with physicians and doctoral-level scientists in both journals.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration with individuals who do not have doctoral-level degrees, presumably medical students, has a strong association with scholarly impact among researchers publishing in the Laryngoscope and IFAR. Research mentorship of medical students interested in otolaryngology may allow a physician-scientist to evaluate the students' effectiveness and functioning in a team setting, a critical component of success in residency training, and may have beneficial effects on research productivity for the senior author.

Gender disparity among US anaesthesiologists: are women underrepresented in academic ranks and scholarly productivity?

INTRODUCTION

The h-index is an objective indicator of research productivity and influence on scholarly discourse within a discipline. It may be a valuable adjunct for measuring research productivity, a key component in decisions regarding appointment and promotion in academic medicine. The objectives of this analysis were to (1) examine whether there are gender disparities in research productivity among academic anaesthesiologists, and (2) compare results to measures of research productivity in other specialties.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis of faculty members from 25 academic anaesthesiology departments was performed using the Scopus database. Academic anaesthesiologists were organised by academic rank and gender. The h-index and publication range (in years) of faculty members were calculated.

RESULTS

Male anaesthesiologists had higher research productivity, as measured by the h-index, than female colleagues. Organised by rank, this difference was noted only among full professors. Men had higher overall and early-career research productivity, while women had mid-career research productivity rates equivalent to and surpassing that of their male colleagues. Gender disparities in research productivity were also noted among a sample of academic physicians in other specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

While men had higher overall research productivity, women had equivalent or higher mid-career research output, suggesting that early-career considerations unique to women should be taken into account during appointment and promotion in academic anaesthesiology. While disparities in gender representation among anaesthesiologists have also been noted in Europe, further study as to whether these differences also extend to research productivity and academic promotion outside of the US would be of interest.

Scholastic activity among radiation oncology residents at US academic institutions: a benchmark analysis

Objective assessment of academic productivity is useful for residency programs. This study aims to analyze the number of publications and Hirsch index (h index) among radiation oncology residents. Names of residents during the 2010 academic year (n = 607) were collected from the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology 2010 Directory. Number of publications and h index from Jan. 1996 to Feb. 2012 were collected from a bibliographic database (SCOPUS, Elsevier, BV, Amsterdam, NL). Analysis of h index included stratification by gender, residency size, and postresidency private practice or academic employment. Six hundred seven residents, 67% men and 33% women, had an overall mean h index of 2.5 ± 3.2. Graduates in academia exhibited a higher mean h index (3.9 ± 0.30) compared to private practice (2.0 ± 0.25; p < 0.01). Gender, residency size, and post-graduate position remained correlates of h index (all p ≤ 0.01). Women had lower mean h index and number of publications than men (2.1 ± 2.3 vs 2.7 ± 3.5, 4.5 ± 5.3 vs 6.2 ± 8.0, respectively; both p < 0.05). However, when stratified by current position (resident, private practice, or academic), there were no significant differences in h index by gender. The mean ± SD h indices for institutions comprising the top 10% ranged 4.17 ± 3.2-5.25 ± 5.4 while the bottom 10% ranged 0.0 ± 0.0-0.75 ± 1.4. The h index is a useful metric to assess residents' early dedication to scholarly endeavors. Female radiation oncology residents had fewer total publications and slightly lower h indices, warranting accessible research avenues and environments for future female physician-scientists. The application of the h index provides a reference for medical students, residents, residency program directors, and many others to gauge academic performance and establish appropriate benchmarks.

The use of the Hirsch index in benchmarking hepatic surgery research

BACKGROUND

The Hirsch index (h-index) is recognized as an effective way to summarize an individual's scientific research output. However, a benchmark for evaluating surgeon scientists in the field of hepatic surgery is still not available.

METHODS

A total of 3,251 authors who published between 1949 and 2011 were identified using the Scopus identification number. The h-index, the total number of cited document, the total number of citations, and the scientific age were calculated for each author using both Scopus and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

The median h-index was 6 and the median scientific age, assessed with Google Scholar, was 19 years. The numbers of cited documents, numbers of citations, and h-indexes obtained from Scopus and Google Scholar showed good correlation with one another; however, the results from the 2 databases were modified in different ways by scientific age. By plotting scientific age against h-index percentiles an h-index growth chart for both Scopus database and Google Scholar was provided.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides a first benchmark to assess surgeon scientists' productivity in the field of liver surgery.

Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether there are gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments, as measured by academic rank and the h-index, a published, objective measure of research contributions that quantifies the number and significance of papers published by a given author.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Analysis of bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists.

METHODS

Faculty listings from academic otolaryngology departments were used to determine academic rank and gender. The Scopus database was used to determine h-index and publication range (in years) of these faculty members. In addition, 20 randomly chosen institutions were used to compare academic otolaryngologists to faculty members in other surgical specialties.

RESULTS

Mean h-indices increased through the rank of professor. Among academic otolaryngologists, men had significantly higher h-indices than women, a finding also noted on examination of faculty members from other specialties. Men had higher research productivity rates at earlier points in their career than women did. The productivity rates of women increased and equaled or surpassed those of men later in their careers. Men had higher absolute h-index values at junior academic ranks. Women academic otolaryngologists of senior rank had higher absolute h-indices than their male counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

The h-index measures research significance in an objective manner and indicates that although men have higher overall research productivity in academic otolaryngology, women demonstrate a different productivity curve. Women produce less research output earlier in their careers than men do, but at senior levels, they equal or exceed the research productivity of men.

Distribution of the h-index in radiation oncology conforms to a variation of power law: implications for assessing academic productivity

Leaders of academic institutions evaluate academic productivity when deciding to hire, promote, or award resources. This study examined the distribution of the h-index, an assessment of academic standing, among radiation oncologists. The authors collected h-indices for 826 US academic radiation oncologists from a commercial bibliographic database (SCOPUS, Elsevier B.V., NL). Then, logarithmic transformation was performed on h-indices and ranked h-indices, and results were compared to estimates of a power law distribution. The h-index frequency distribution conformed to both the log-linear variation of a power law (r (2) = .99) and the beta distribution with the same fitting exponents as previously described in a power law analysis of the productivity of neurosurgeons. Within radiation oncology, as in neurosurgery, there are exceedingly more faculty with an h-index of 1-2. The distribution fitting the same variation of a power law within two fields suggests applicability to other areas of academia.