Inconsistency in Automated Reports of Scientific Productivity and Impact in Academic Plastic Surgery:

Defining Predictors of Future Academic Productivity in Plastic Surgery Residency

Background

Research is a valued component of applications to plastic surgery residency. No prior studies have explored factors associated with increased resident research productivity. This study aims to compare the academic productivity levels of plastic surgery residency graduates based on their pre- and postresidency experiences.

Methods

Residents graduating in 2019 and 2020 were identified from integrated programs. Metrics collected included the number of publications in medical school and residency. Descriptive statistics were completed along with linear regressions to evaluate the impact of these on academic productivity.

Results

A total of 221 residents from the classes of 2019 and 2020 were included. Most residents completed fellowship (75.9%) although less than half went on to academic practice (42.3%). Approximately one in five residents obtained secondary degrees (17.4%). Subjects averaged 3.15 (N = 208, SD = 4.51) publications while in medical school and 8.1 publications during residency (N = 209, SD = 10.0). For h-index calculated at the end of residency, having dedicated medical school research time was the only statistically significant factor (coefficient = 2.96, P = 0.002).

Conclusions

Plastic surgery residents published more often as first authors and overall during residency than medical school, indicating increased research involvement and leadership. The present study builds upon prior studies by confirming the importance of dedicated medical school research time and its lasting impact. Understanding the associations of academic factors with increased research productivity in residency is relevant for both applicants and programs evaluating residency candidates.

Calling on Sponsorship: Analysis of Speaker Gender Representation at Hand Society Meetings

BACKGROUND

The paucity of leadership diversity in surgical specialties is well documented. Unequal opportunities for participation at scientific meetings may impact future promotions within academic infrastructures. This study evaluated gender representation of surgeon speakers at hand surgery meetings.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from the 2010 and 2020 meetings of the American Association for Hand Surgery (AAHS) and American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH). Programs were evaluated for invited and peer-reviewed speakers excluding keynote speakers and poster presentations. Gender was determined from publicly available sources. Bibliometric data (Hirsch index) for invited speakers were analyzed.

RESULTS

In 2010 at the AAHS ( n = 142) and ASSH meetings ( n = 180), female surgeons represented 4% of the invited speakers and in 2020 increased to 15% at AAHS ( n = 193) and 19% at ASSH ( n = 439). From 2010 to 2020, female surgeon invited speakers had a 3.75-fold increase at AAHS and 4.75-fold increase at ASSH. Representation of female surgeon peer-reviewed presenters at these meetings was similar (2010 AAHS, 26%; and 2010 ASSH, 22%; 2020 AAHS, 23%; 2020 ASSH, 22%). The academic rank of women speakers was significantly lower ( P < 0.001) than for male speakers. At the assistant professor level, the mean Hirsch index was significantly lower ( P < 0.05) for female invited speakers.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was a significant improvement in gender diversity in invited speakers at the 2020 meetings compared with 2010, female surgeons remain underrepresented. Gender diversity is lacking at national hand surgery meetings, and continued effort and sponsorship of speaker diversity is imperative to curate an inclusive hand society experience.

The Association Between H-Index and Publication of Plastic Surgery Meeting Presenters From 2014 to 2017

BACKGROUND

Plastic surgery is a competitive specialty that values research productivity among members of the field. The Hirsch index has been shown to measure a researcher's scientific impact. This study sought to determine whether an association exists between H-indices and the probability of and speed to publication.

METHODS

Using Scopus, Google Scholar, PubMed, and the Plastic Surgery the Meeting (PSTM) website, first author (FAHi) and senior author (SAHi) H-indices (n = 1048) from Plastic Surgery the Meeting (PSTM) abstracts from 2014 to 2017 were collected. Whether or not an abstract was ultimately published in a peer-reviewed journal was noted. If published, number of days between PSTM presentation and publication date were recorded. Logistic regression model was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 592 out of 1048 total abstracts were published as manuscripts. FAHi and SAHi had significant positive correlations with odds of publication. Both FAHi and SAHi showed positive correlation with the odds of abstract publication (P < 0.001 and P = 0.033). Impact of FAHi on likelihood of publication was greater than that of SAHi. The correlation between FAHi and SAHi with the number of days until abstract publication was not significant (P = 0.333 and P = 0.856). For abstracts published before the PSTM presentation date (15.9% of published), only FAHi (P = 0.008) showed positive correlation of publication before presentation.

CONCLUSIONS

The Hirsch index provides an objective method for evaluating the probability that an abstract will lead to manuscript publication, in addition to its traditional application in gauging the impact of research. The findings of this study support that both FAHi and SAHi have a positive, direct correlation with the probability of publication.

Assessment of the Academic Productivity of Plastic Surgeons in Saudi Arabia Using the h-index

Hirsch-index (or h-index) is a bibliometric measure calculated for researchers based on number of publications and their citations. This study examined the h-index of board-certified plastic surgeons in Saudi Arabia and the different factors that may influence it.

METHOD

In this cross-sectional study, an electronic questionnaire was sent to 156 board-certified plastic surgeons practicing in Saudi Arabia. Using their names, we conducted an online search on Scopus, Semantic scholar, and Google scholar to calculate their h-index. Bivariate and multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine the relationship of those factors with the index.

RESULTS

A total of 84 surgeons participated in this study, of whom 83.3% were men. Our sample scored a mean index of 1.7 and published a mean of 5 articles. More publications and a higher academic rank predicted a higher h-index, (β = 0.79, P < 0.001) and (β = 0.14, P 0.017), respectively. On the other end of the spectrum, the country of residency training (P 0.33), the year of training completion (P 0.95), attaining fellowship training (P 0.95), the number of fellowships (P 0.20), interest in research (P 0.74), working in an academic hospital (P 0.44), or attaining a higher degree (P 0.61) were not significant independent predictors of the index.

CONCLUSIONS

More publications and a higher rank predicted increased academic productivity among the plastic surgeons in Saudi Arabia. Despite its limitations, h-index is a useful measure that can be considered in promotions and applications to prestigious plastic surgery centers in adjunct to other factors.

Trends in the research profile of matched independent plastic surgery fellows

The independent plastic surgery pathway recruits candidates with 5 years of surgical training who are typically more advanced in research than their integrated counterparts. Research productivity helps to discriminate between applicants. However, no studies exist detailing the academic attributes of matched independent plastic surgery candidates.We performed a cohort study of 161 independent plastic surgery fellows from accredited residency programs from the 2015 to 2017 application cycles. We performed a bibliometric analysis utilizing Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar to identify research output measures at the time of application.The cohort was predominantly men (66%) with a median of 3 articles and a H-index of 1 at the time of application. Interestingly, 16% of successful candidates had no published articles at the time of application, and this did not change significantly over time (P = .0740). Although the H-index remained stable (R 0.13, P = .1095), the number of published journal articles per candidate significantly decreased over 3 consecutive application cycles (R -0.16, P = .0484). Analysis of article types demonstrated a significant increase in basic science articles (R 0.18, P = .0366) and a concurrent decrease in editorial-type publications (R = -0.18, P = .0374).Despite the decline in publication volume of matched independent plastic surgery fellows, the quality of their research portfolio has remained constant. Matched applicants appear to be shifting focus from faster-to-publish articles to longer but higher impact projects. In selecting a training route, applicants must weigh the highly competitive integrated path against the dwindling number of independent positions.

The Glass Ceiling in Plastic Surgery: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Gender Gap in Career Advancement

BACKGROUND

Gender parity remains elusive in academic plastic surgery. It is unknown whether this disparity is attributable to differences in qualifications or to the glass ceiling of gender bias. To parse this, the authors compared academic titles and departmental leadership of female academic plastic surgeons to a matched group of their male counterparts.

METHODS

The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of academic plastic surgeons. The authors identified faculty, sex, academic rank, and leadership positions from plastic surgery residency program websites. The authors then collected details on training institution, advanced degrees, years in practice, and h-index for use as independent variables. The authors performed a propensity score analysis to 1:1 match male and female academic plastic surgeons.

RESULTS

A total of 818 academic plastic surgeons were included. The cohort was predominately male [n = 658 (81 percent)], with a median 12 years in practice and a median h-index of 9. Before matching, men had more years in practice (13 years versus 9 years; p < 0.0001), a greater h-index (11 versus 5; p < 0.0001), were more likely to be professors (34 percent versus 13 percent; p < 0.0001), and held more leadership positions than women (41 percent versus 30 percent; p = 0.0221). Following matching, gender parity was demonstrated in academic rank and departmental leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in training, qualifications, career length, and academic productivity may account for the leadership gap in academic plastic surgery. Gendered difficulties in reaching qualification benchmarks must be addressed before gender parity in promotion can be achieved.

Gender Imbalance at Academic Plastic Surgery Meetings

BACKGROUND

Participation in scientific meetings yields multiple benefits, yet participation opportunities may not be equally afforded to men and women. The authors' primary goal was to evaluate the representation of men and women at five major academic plastic surgery meetings in 2017. Secondarily, the authors used bibliometric data to compare academic productivity between male and female physician invited speakers or moderators.

METHODS

The authors compiled information regarding male and female invited speakers from meeting programs. Bibliometric data (h-index, m-value) and metrics of academic productivity (numbers of career publications, publications in 2015 to 2016, career peer-reviewed publications, first and senior author publications) for invited speakers were extracted from Scopus and analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 282 academic physician invited speakers at the five 2017 meetings. Women constituted 14.5 percent. Univariate analysis showed no differences in h-index, m-value, or numbers of total career publications or first and last author publications at the assistant and associate professor ranks, but higher values for men at the professor level. A model of academic rank based on bibliometric and demographic variables showed male gender significantly associated with increased probability of holding a professor title, even when controlling for academic achievement markers (OR, 2.17; 95 percent CI, 1.61 to 2.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the impact of women's published work was no different than that of men among junior and midcareer faculty, women constitute a minority of invited speakers at academic plastic surgery meetings. Sponsorship is imperative for achieving gender balance within plastic surgery and to ultimately create more diverse and effective teams to improve patient care.