Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons

Laryngoscope

Volumn 123, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 884-889

  Svider, Peter F ^a   Pashkova, Anna A ^a   Choudhry, Zaid ^a   Agarwal, Nitin ^b   Kovalerchik, Olga ^a   Baredes, Soly ^a   Liu, James K ^a,b   Eloy, Jean Anderson ^a,b  

^a RUTGERS NEW JERSEY MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b RWJ Barnabas Health   (United States)

Author keywords

academic physician scientific productivity; academic productivity; academic promotion; academic rank determination; academic rank in surgical specialties; faculty productivity; h index; surgical faculty productivity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA BASE; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; OTOLARYNGOLOGIST; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SURGEON;

AUTHORSHIP; BIBLIOMETRICS; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; OTOLARYNGOLOGY; SPECIALTIES, SURGICAL;

EID: 84875477710     PISSN: 0023852X     EISSN: 15314995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/lary.23951     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. 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.
2. Ball P,. Achievement index climbs the ranks. Nature 2007; 448: 737.
3. Opthof T, Wilde AA,. The Hirsch-index: a simple, new tool for the assessment of scientific output of individual scientists: The case of Dutch professors in clinical cardiology. Neth Heart J 2009; 17: 145-154.
4. Thomaz PG, Assad RS, Moreira LF,. Using the impact factor and H index to assess researchers and publications. Arq Bras Cardiol 2011; 96: 90-93.
5. Hirsch JE,. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102: 16569-16572.
6. Svider PF, Choudhry ZA, Choudhry OJ, Baredes S, Liu JK, Eloy JA,. The use of the h-index in academic otolaryngology. Laryngoscope. 2012 Jul 25; DOI: 10.1002/lary.23569. Epub ahead of print.
7. Rad AE, Brinjikji W, Cloft HJ, Kallmes DF,. The H-index in academic radiology. Acad Radiol 2010; 17: 817-821.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Kelly CD, Jennions MD,. The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends Ecol Evol 2006; 21: 167-170.
11. 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.
12. Bligh J, Brice J,. Further insights into the roles of the medical educator: the importance of scholarly management. Acad Med 2009; 84: 1161-1165.
13. 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.
14. Lee J, Kraus KL, Couldwell WT,. Use of the h index in neurosurgery. Clinical article. J Neurosurg 2009; 111: 387-392.
15. Eloy JA, Svider PF, Mauro KM, Setzen M, Baredes S,. Impact of fellowship training on research productivity in academic otolaryngology. Laryngoscope 2012; 122: 2690-2694.
16. Svider PF, Mauro KM, Sanghvi S, Setzen M, Baredes S, Eloy JA,. Is NIH funding predictive of greater research productivity and impact among academic otolaryngologists? Laryngoscope 2012 Sep 18; DOI: 10.1002/lary.23659. Epub ahead of print.
17. Eloy JA, Svider PF, Chandrasekhar SS, et al. Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012 Nov 16; DOI: 10.1177/0194599812466055. Epub ahead of print.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Ball P,. Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature 2005; 436: 900.
21. Purvis A,. The h index: playing the numbers game. Trends Ecol Evol 2006; 21: 422.
22. Engqvist L, Frommen JG,. The h-index and self-citations. Trends Ecol Evol 2008; 23: 250-252.
23. Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A, Fiack S, Scott-Lichter D, Robinson A,. Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: a publisher's perspective. Int J Clin Pract Suppl 2007: 1-26.
24. McDonald RJ, Neff KL, Rethlefsen ML, Kallmes DF,. Effects of REFAU contribution disclosures and numeric limitations on REFAUship trends. Mayo Clin Proc 2010; 85: 920-927.
25. Bonekamp S, Halappa VG, Corona-Villalobos CP, et al. Prevalence of honorary coREFAUship in the American Journal of Roentgenology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198: 1247-1255.
26. Baskin PK, Gross RA,. Honorary and ghost REFAUship. BMJ 2011; 343: d6223.
27. AAMC. 2008 Physician Specialty Data: Center for Workforce Studies. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2008. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/download/47352/data/specialtydata.pdf. Accessed on May 15, 2012.
28. Townsend J, Institute of Medicine (U.S.), Committee on Research Capabilities of Academic Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Strengthening Research in Academic OB/GYN Departments. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992.
29. Lamki N, Marchand M,. The medical educator teaching portfolio: its compilation and potential utility. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J 2006; 6: 7-12.