Relative Citation Ratio of Top Twenty Macedonian Biomedical Scientists in PubMed: A New Metric that Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level

Utilizing Relative Citation Ratio to Compare Academic Productivity by Gender in Plastic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The relative citation ratio (RCR) is a bibliometric index utilized to assess research productivity. Mean relative citation ratio (m-RCR) and weighted relative citation ratio (w-RCR) can be utilized to assess individual research quality as well as career-long productivity, respectively. We sought to determine differences in academic productivity between genders and identify demographic variables associated with increased academic productivity.

METHODS

A list of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery residency programs was compiled utilizing the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons website. Each program department's website was utilized to generate a list of practicing surgeons and respective demographic information. Both mean and weighted RCR were obtained using the iCite, a National Institutes of Health bibliometric tool. Surgeons were excluded if any demographic or RCR data was not accessible. Chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and multivariable linear regressions were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 785 academic plastic surgeons met the criteria and were included in the analysis, 186 of whom were women and 599 men. Both academic rank and model of residency training were significantly associated with gender in chi-squared analysis (P < 0.05). Mean relative citation ratio was higher among men in departments. Mean w-RCR was higher among men of assistant professor status, chief/chairperson status, integrated model of residency training, faculty size ≥six and in departments and divisions. Academic rank and faculty size were associated with higher w-RCR upon multivariable linear regression.

CONCLUSIONS

Although differences exist in mean w-RCR between men and women in plastic surgery, gender is not a predictor of increased academic productivity. RCR is an accurate means of assessing gender differences in academic productivity as it comprehensively considers both quality and quantity of research and may be superior to other, older bibliometric indices.

Journal- or article-based citation measure? A study of academic promotion at a Swiss university

In academia, decisions on promotions are influenced by the citation impact of the works published by the candidates. The Medical Faculty of the University of Bern used a measure based on the journal impact factor (JIF) for this purpose: the JIF of the papers submitted for promotion should rank in the upper third of journals in the relevant discipline (JIF rank >0.66). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) aims to eliminate the use of journal-based metrics in academic promotion. We examined whether the JIF rank could be replaced with the relative citation ratio (RCR), an article-level measure of citation impact developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). An RCR percentile >0.66 corresponds to the upper third of citation impact of articles from NIH-sponsored research. We examined 1525 publications submitted by 64 candidates for academic promotion at University of Bern. There was only a moderate correlation between the JIF rank and RCR percentile (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.34, 95% CI 0.29-0.38). Among the 1,199 articles (78.6%) published in journals ranking >0.66 for the JIF, less than half (509, 42.5%) were in the upper third of the RCR percentile. Conversely, among the 326 articles published in journals ranking <0.66 regarding the JIF, 72 (22.1%) ranked in the upper third of the RCR percentile. Our study demonstrates that the rank of the JIF is a bad proxy measure for the actual citation impact of individual articles. The Medical Faculty of University of Bern has signed DORA and replaced the JIF rank with the RCR percentile to assess the citation impact of papers submitted for academic promotion.

Gender disparities are present in academic rank and leadership positions despite overall equivalence in research productivity indices among senior members of American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) Fellowship Faculty

BACKGROUND

This study aims to examine potential disparities in scholarly performance based on sex, academic rank, leadership positions, and regional distribution of faculty in accredited Head and Neck Surgery fellowships in the United States.

METHODS

Online faculty listings for 37 accredited fellowships were organized according to academic rank, leadership position, sex, and institutional location. Academic productivity was measured with three bibliometric indices: h-index, m-index, and the weighted relative citation ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 732 faculty members were included, of which 153 (21%) were female. Fifty-eight males (89.2%) held leadership positions, compared to seven females (10.8%). There was no significant difference in overall productivity between male and female senior faculty. There were regional differences in productivity by sex.

CONCLUSIONS

Females are underrepresented in senior faculty and within three common leadership positions, although scholarly productivity for male and female senior faculty and for those in leadership positions is similar.