Is NIH funding predictive of greater research productivity and impact among academic otolaryngologists?

Laryngoscope

Volumn 123, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 118-122

  Svider, Peter F ^a   Mauro, Kevin M ^a   Sanghvi, Saurin ^a   Setzen, Michael ^b,c   Baredes, Soly ^a   Eloy, Jean Anderson ^a,d  

^a RUTGERS NEW JERSEY MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b NORTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d RWJ Barnabas Health   (United States)

Author keywords

academic otolaryngologist research productivity; academic physician scientific productivity; academic productivity; academic promotion; academic rank determination; faculty productivity; h index; Level of Evidence: N A; NIH funding; NIH funding and h index; surgical faculty productivity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; DATA BASE; EVALUATION; FUNDING; H INDEX; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; ONLINE ANALYSIS; OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRODUCTIVITY; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS;

BIBLIOMETRICS; EFFICIENCY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMANS; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); OTOLARYNGOLOGY; RESEARCH; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84871293870     PISSN: 0023852X     EISSN: 15314995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/lary.23659     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Baldwin C, Chandran L, Gusic M,. Guidelines for evaluating the educational performance of medical school faculty: priming a national conversation. Teach Learn Med 2011; 23: 285-297.
2. Bligh J, Brice J,. Further insights into the roles of the medical educator: the importance of scholarly management. Acad Med 2009; 84: 1161-1165.
3. Pagel PS, Hudetz JA,. An analysis of scholarly productivity in United States academic anaesthesiologists by citation bibliometrics. Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 873-878.
4. Beasley BW, Wright SM, Cofrancesco J, Jr,., Babbott SF, Thomas PA, Bass EB,. Promotion criteria for clinician-educators in the United States and Canada. A survey of promotion committee chairpersons. JAMA 1997; 278: 723-728.
5. Atasoylu AA, Wright SM, Beasley BW, et al. Promotion criteria for clinician-educators. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18: 711-716.
6. Hirsch JE,. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102: 16569-16572.
7. von Bohlen Und, Halbach O,. How to judge a book by its cover? How useful are bibliometric indices for the evaluation of "scientific quality" or "scientific productivity"? Ann Anat 2011; 193: 191-196.
8. Comarow A,. A look inside the hospital rankings. how 170 out of 5,453 centers made the cut. US News World Rep 2008; 145: 70, 72.
9. McGaghie WC, Thompson JA,. America's best medical schools: a critique of the U.S. News & World Report rankings. Acad Med 2001; 76: 985-992.
10. Turaga KK, Gamblin TC,. Measuring the surgical academic output of an institution: the "institutional" h-index. J Surg Educ 2012; 69: 499-503.
11. Healy NA, Glynn RW, Scutaru C, Groneberg D, Kerin MJ, Sweeney KJ,. The h index and the identification of global benchmarks for breast cancer research output. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 127: 845-851.
12. Ball P,. Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature 2005; 436: 900.
13. Lee J, Kraus KL, Couldwell WT,. Use of the h index in neurosurgery. Clinical article. J Neurosurg 2009; 111: 387-392.
14. Petersen AM, Stanley HE, Succi S,. Statistical regularities in the rank-citation profile of scientists. Sci Rep 2011; 1: 181.
15. Pagel PS, Hudetz JA,. H-index is a sensitive indicator of academic activity in highly productive anaesthesiologists: results of a bibliometric analysis. Acta anaesthesiol Scand 2011; 55: 1085-1089.
16. Pereira JC, Bronhara B,. H-index of Collective Health professors in Brazil. Rev Saude Publica 2011; 45: 599-606.
17. Poynard T, Thabut D, Jabre P, et al. Ranking hepatologists: which Hirsch's h-index to prevent the "e-crise de foi-e"? Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2011; 35: 375-386.
18. Thompson DF, Callen EC, Nahata MC,. New indices in scholarship assessment. Am J Pharm Edu 2009; 73: 111.
19. Dodson MV,. Citation analysis: Maintenance of h-index and use of e-index. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2009; 387: 625-626.
20. Benway BM, Kalidas P, Cabello JM, Bhayani SB,. Does citation analysis reveal association between h-index and academic rank in urology? Urology 2009; 74: 30-33.
21. Svider PF, Choudhry ZA, Choudhry OJ, Baredes S, Liu JK, Eloy JA,. The use of the h-index in academic otolaryngology. Laryngoscope 2012; DOI: 10.1002/lary.23569. Epub ahead of print.
22. Kotchen TA, Lindquist T, Malik K, Ehrenfeld E,. NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research. JAMA 2004; 291: 836-843.
23. Office of Extramural Research. National Institutes of Health. Peer Review Process. Available at: http: //grantsnihgov/grants/peer-review-processhtm. Accessed June 25, 2012.
24. Prevedello DM, Thomas A, Gardner P, Snyderman CH, Carrau RL, Kassam AB,. Endoscopic endonasal resection of a synchronous pituitary adenoma and a tuberculum sellae meningioma: technical case report. Neurosurgery 2007; 60: E401; discussion E401.
25. Moses H III, Dorsey ER, Matheson DH, Thier SO,. Financial anatomy of biomedical research. JAMA 2005; 294: 1333-1342.
26. Rezek I, McDonald RJ, Kallmes DF,. Is the h-index predictive of greater NIH funding success among academic radiologists? Acad Radiol 2011; 18: 1337-1340.
27. Rad AE, Brinjikji W, Cloft HJ, Kallmes DF,. The H-index in academic radiology. Acad Radiol 2010; 17: 817-821.
28. Jeang KT,. H-index, mentoring-index, highly-cited and highly-accessed: how to evaluate scientists? Retrovirology 2008; 5: 106.
29. Hirsch JE,. Does the H index have predictive power? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007; 104: 19193-19198.
30. Kelly CD, Jennions MD,. H-index: age and sex make it unreliable. Nature 2007; 449: 403.
31. Bartneck C, Kokkelmans S,. Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics 2011; 87: 85-98.