Evaluation of Research Productivity among Academic Glaucoma Specialists Using the Relative Citation Ratio

Abstract

PurposeTo provide relative citation ratio (RCR) benchmark data for the field of glaucoma. DesignCross-sectional bibliometric analysis. SubjectsFellowship-trained glaucoma faculty at ACGME-accredited institutions. MethodsGlaucoma faculty were individually indexed using the NIH iCite website. Publication count, mean RCR score, and weighted RCR score were collected for each author between May and August 2023 and included PubMed-listed articles from 1980 to 2023. Data were compared by gender, career duration, academic rank, and acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). Main Outcome MeasuresTotal number of publications, mean RCR value, weighted RCR value. Results526 academic glaucoma specialists from 113 institutions were indexed. These physicians produced highly impactful research with a median publication count of 13 (IQR 4-38), median RCR of 1.41 (IQR 0.97-1.98), and median weighted RCR of 16.89 (4.80-63.39). Academic rank, career duration, and having a PhD were associated with increased publication count, mean RCR, and weighted RCR. Publication count and weighted RCR differed significantly by gender, however, no difference was observed with mean RCR. ConclusionsCurrent academic glaucoma specialists have high mean RCR values relative to the NIH standard RCR value of 1. This benchmark data serves as a more accurate gauge of research impact within the glaucoma community and can be used to inform self, institutional, and departmental evaluations. Additionally, the mean RCR may provide an accurate metric for quantifying research productivity among historically underrepresented groups that are disadvantaged by time-dependent factors such as number of publications.