Differences In Research Productivity Research Articles

Research Productivity and Publishing Trends in Publicly Funded Social Work and Psychology Schools in India: A Bibliometric Analysis

There is a growing emphasis on research across disciplines, and higher educational institutions’ research productivity (RP) is a matter of serious consideration. However, a knowledge gap exists in RP in research productivity in social science disciplines in India. In this context, the present study aimed to (1) understand the RP of social work and psychology schools at publicly funded central universities (CU) in India, (2) evaluate the RP and research impacts of faculty members in these schools, and (3) identify the publishing trends and patterns in social work and psychology disciplines. Using the Scopus database, we collected bibliometric information on publications of 19 social work and 16 psychology schools and their faculty members. The results indicate that schools’ research productivity remained unpromising, constituting many faculty members (Social work 51.08%; Psychology 43.4%) with no publications. Although the average RP of social work ( M = 16.0, SD = 17.40) and psychology ( M = 45.63, SSD = 61.08) schools differed, the difference was not statistically significant ( t = 1.88, p = .078). An increase in the publication was evident after 2016, indicating positive-policy impacts. A difference in RP across professional ranks was evident for social work ( p < .05) but not for psychology ( p > .05). For research impact, a difference existed based on ranks for academicians from psychology only ( p < .05). Publications in high-impact journals and an output of international collaborations remained low in both disciplines. Implications point to developing appropriate workshops and training to provide hands-on experience to improve quality research among academicians. Further policy changes are also essential to enhance research culture and productivity.

Gender Disparity in Authorship Among Orthopaedic Surgery Residents.

Gender disparity remains pervasive in orthopaedic surgery, which affects the research pursuits of orthopaedic surgeons. The purpose of this study was to characterize gender-related authorship trends of orthopaedic surgery residents, including evaluation of gender-concordant publication rates. An observational cross-sectional analysis of US orthopaedic surgery residency programs was performed. Information on residency programs and demographics of each cohort was collected. Publication metrics consisting of number of first and non-first author publications and H-indices were manually obtained for PGY-3 to PGY-5 residents attending the 25 programs ranked the highest for research output by Doximity. Gender of each resident and senior author was determined from institutional websites using photos, biographies, and preferred pronouns when available. A total of 532 residents, 169 (31.8%) female and 363 (68.2%) male, were included for authorship analysis. Of them, 415 (78%) had at least one first author publication, which did not vary significantly by gender. Female residents had disproportionately fewer first author publications compared with their representation (22% vs. 31.8%, p < 0.00001). Female residents averaged fewer first and non-first author publications compared with male residents (2.8 vs. 4.6, p = 0.0003; 6.4 vs. 10, p = 0.0001 respectively). Despite fewer publications overall, a greater subset of publications by female residents were written in collaboration with a female senior author compared with publications by male residents (p < 0.0001). Male residents had a higher average H-index of 5.4 vs. 3.9 among female residents (p = 0.00007). Despite similar rates of first author publication among male and female residents, female residents had fewer publications overall, lower H-indices, and disproportionately fewer first author publications than would be expected given their representation. Findings from this study suggest that gender disparity in orthopaedic surgery extends to differences in research productivity as early as in residency. This may have negative implications on the career advancement of female orthopaedic surgeons. Additional work is needed to identify and understand biases in research productivity and career advancement, to promote more equitable strategies for academic achievement. IV.

Geographical and gender inequalities in health sciences studies: testing differences in research productivity, impact and visibility

PurposeGender and geographical imbalance in production and impact levels is a pressing issue in global knowledge production. Within Health Sciences, while some studies found stark gender and geographical biases and inequalities, others found little empirical evidence of this marginalization. The purpose of the study is to clear the ambiguity concerning the topic.Design/methodology/approachBased on a comprehensive and systematic analysis of Health Sciences research data downloaded from the Scival (Scopus/Scimago) database from 2017 to 2020 (n = 7,990), this study first compares gender representation in research productivity, as well as differences in terms of citation per document, citations per document view and view per document scores according to geographical location. Additionally, the study clarifies whether there is a geographic bias in productivity and impact measures (i.e. citation per document, citations per document view and view per document) moderated by gender.FindingsResults indicate that gender inequalities in productivity are systematic at the overall disciplinary, as well as the subfield levels. Findings also suggest statistically significant geographical differences in citation per document, citations per document view, and view per document scores, and interaction effect of gender over the relation between geography and (1) the number of citations per view and (2) the number of views per document.Originality/valueThis study contributes to scientometric studies in health sciences by providing insightful findings about the geographical and gender bias in productivity and impact across world regions.

Differences in productivity and collaboration patterns on spine-related research between neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons: Bibliometric analysis.

Spinal surgeries are commonly performed by neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons, with many spine-related articles published by them. However, there has been limited research that directly compares their research achievements. This article conducted a comparative analysis of spine-related research achievements between neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. This study examines differences in productivity and impact on spine-related research between them using these measures, particularly with a novel clustering algorithm. We gathered 2148 articles written by neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons from the Web of Science core collections, covering the period from 2013 to 2022. To analyze author collaborations, we employed the follower-leader clustering algorithm (FLCA) and conducted cluster analysis. A 3-part analysis was carried out: cluster analysis of author collaborations; mean citation analysis; and a category, journal, authorship, L-index (CJAL) score based on article category, journal impact factors, authorships, and L-indices. We then utilized R to create visual displays of our findings, including circle bar charts, heatmaps with dendrograms, 4-quadrant radar plots, and forest plots. The mean citations and CJAL scores were compared between neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. When considering first and corresponding authors, orthopedics authors wrote a greater proportion of the articles in the article collections, accounting for 75% (1600 out of 2148). The CJAL score based on the top 10 units each also favored orthopedic spine surgeons, with 71% (3626 out of 6139) of the total score attributed to them. Using the FLCA, we observed that orthopedic spine surgeons tended to have more collaborations across countries. Additionally, while citation per article favored orthopedic spine surgeons with standard mean difference (= -0.66) and 95%CI: -0.76, -0.56, the mean CJAL score in difference (= 0.34) favored neurosurgeons with 95%CI: 0.24 0.44. Orthopedic spine surgeons have a higher number of publications, citations, and CJAL scores in spine research than those in neurosurgeons. Orthopedic spine surgeons tend to have more collaborations and coauthored papers in the field. The study highlights the differences in research productivity and collaboration patterns between the 2 authors in spine research and sheds light on potential contributing factors. The study recommends the use of FLCA for future bibliographical studies.

Impact of PHDs Trained in Europe and North America on the Productivity of Scientific Research: Evidence from Latin America

Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to analyze the differences in research productivity between doctoral degree holders from European and North American universities, and doctoral degree holders from Peru. Theoretical framework: Internationalization of higher education has become a phenomenon of great relevance in recent years (Romani et al., 2021), allowing an increasing number of doctoral researchers to study in foreign countries. However, little evidence has been generated in Latin America. Design/Methodology/Approach: The study uses an explanatory approach based on data mining that analyze data from 863 researchers from 24 public and private universities in Perú, according to the two categories of productivity (high and low) defined by the National Scientific Research Agency. Findings: The results show that of all the factors analyzed, the country of doctoral study is the most important variable in predicting the scientific productivity of researchers. This situation is confirmed when analyzing the number of publications made by researchers according to their category, where a clear tendency in favor of researchers who studied abroad can be seen. Research, Practical &amp; Social implications: The results suggest that international academics are more likely to publish in top-tier journals. Also, the results may be applicable to other countries, but more studies are going to be necessary. Originality/Value: The results of this investigation are relevant, because studies about the academic internationalization effects on scientific productivity are scarce and no previous studies about this topic have been conducted in Latin America.

Understanding Gender Differences in Research Productivity of Canadian Otolaryngologists-A Comprehensive National Audit.

Objective: To understand the factors contributing to gender disparities in the research productivity of Canadian academic otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons. Methods: Publicly available sources including departmental websites, SCOPUS, and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada were accessed between February and April 2022 to analyze gender differences in the academic productivity of otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons across Canada. Gender differences in research productivity metrics, including h-index, i10-index, publication number, and number of first and senior authorships were assessed. Demographic data, including gender, institution, years in practice, and leadership roles were assessed for correlation with increased research productivity. Subgroup analyses were used to evaluate gender differences in productivity metrics, and univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate predictors of research productivity. Results: Data were collected for 316 academic otolaryngologists (252 men, 64 women, P < .001). Men had significantly more years of publishing [mean (standard deviation, SD), 15.64 (9.45) vs 12.44 (8.28), P = .014], higher h-indices [12.22 (11.47) vs 7.33 (5.36), P < .001], i10-indices [22.61 (37.88) vs 8.17 (9.14), P > .001], publication numbers [46.63 (65.18) vs 19.59 (23.40), P < .001], and first [8.18 (9.95) vs 4.89 (6.18), P = .001] and senior authorships [12.98 (22.72) vs 3.83 (6.89), P < .001]. Gender differences were most pronounced in head and neck oncology, pediatrics, and the late career stage. Gender disparities in productivity were absent in the early career stage. Multivariate analysis identified only the number publications and number of senior author publications as being significantly influenced by gender. Conclusion: Canadian female otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons appear to have equivalent research productivity to their male counterparts in the early career stage. This mirrors the recent findings in the United States, and demonstrates progress compared to earlier studies that found women to have lower research productivity in the early career stage.

Rise Above the Competition: How Do Plastic Surgery Residency Applicants with NCAA Experience Fare in the Residency Match?

The integrated plastic surgery residency match continues to be highly competitive. Every year, some candidates are former NCAA athletes. While it is challenging to balance academic and athletic responsibilities, participation in NCAA sports may be predictive of continued success. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of participation in collegiate athletics on applicant anticipated rank and academic success. All applications received from 2017 to 2020 at a single institution were reviewed for participation in NCAA athletics (Division I-III). Our primary outcome of interest was applicant anticipated rank by letter of reference writers. Applications were also examined for demographic information, membership in AOA, number of research publications, and USMLE board certification examination scores. After reviewing 885 applications, 61 applicants (6.89%) were former NCAA athletes. Former NCAA involvement was associated with the highest effect on anticipatedranking (- 0.22, p=0.001). Former NCAA involvement demonstrated the highest odds of receiving an anticipated ranking in the top 5 (OR 1.83, p=0.025). We found no significant difference in research productivity between the two groups, including first authorships or USMLE Step 1 board certification exam scores. A significant difference was seen in race distribution, with forty-five (80.4%) of athlete applicants identifying as Caucasian, while 430 (56.5%) of non-athletes identified as Caucasian (p=0.012). Former athletes applying to become integrated plastic surgery residents overcome the challenges of balancing athletic and academic pursuits with a higher anticipated rank in the integrated plastic surgery match while having comparable academic achievement. Former collegiate athletes have demonstrated greater success in and after residency. Former NCAA participation demonstrated the highest odds of receiving a top-5 rank. Former NCAA applicants showed no difference in academic productivity LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: Case series study. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Evaluating the Outcomes and Trainee Performance of a Canadian Medical Imaging Clinician Investigator Program.

Purpose: To measure the research productivity of trainees from the University of Toronto's Medical Imaging Clinician Investigator Program (MI-CIP) and comparing it with the research productivity of trainees from MI-non-CIP and General Surgery (GSx) Clinician Investigator Program. Methods: We identified residents who completed an MI-CIP, MI-non-CIP and GSx-CIP from 2006-2016. In each group of trainees, we assessed 3 research productivity outcomes with non-parametric tests before residency and at 7years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. Research productivity outcomes include the number of total publications, the number of first-author publications, and the publication's average journal impact factor (IF). Results: We identified 11 MI-CIP trainees (male/female: 9 [82%]/2 [18%]), 74 MI-non-CIP trainees (46 [62%]/28 [38%]) and 41 GSx-CIP trainees (23 [56%]/18 [44%]). MI-CIP trainees had statistically significant higher research productivity than MI-non-CIP in all measured outcomes. The median (interquartile range, IQR) number of total publications of MI-CIP vs MI-non-CIP trainees was 5.0 (8.0) vs 1.0 (2.0) before residency and 6.0 (10.0) vs .0 (2.0) at 7years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. The median (IQR) first-author publications of MI-CIP vs MI-non-CIP trainees was 2.0 (3.0) vs .0 (1.0) before residency and 2.0 (4.0) vs (.0) (1.0) at 7years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. The median (IQR) average journal IF of MI-CIP vs MI-non-CIP trainees was 3.2 (2.0) vs .3 (2.4) before residency and 3.9 (3.2) vs .0 (2.6) at 7years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. Between MI-CIP and GSx-CIP trainees, there were no significant differences in research productivity in all measured outcomes. Conclusion: MI-CIP trainees actively conducted research after graduation. These trainees demonstrated early research engagement before residency. The similar research productivity of MI-CIP vs GSx-CIP trainees shows initial success of MI-CIP trainees.

Gender Differences in Research Productivity of Academic Physicians Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: The gendered impact of the COVID-19 on scientific productivity has been primarily studied in nonclinical academic fields. We investigated the gendered effect of the pandemic on diverse measures of research participation among physician faculty, who experienced an increase in clinical duties concomitant with pandemic-era challenges to research. Materials and Methods: Physician faculty employed in both 2019 (prepandemic) and 2021 (pandemic era) were identified at one U.S. medical school. Annual outcomes included scientific publications, Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved protocols, and extramural funding submissions (funding data were unavailable for 2019). Mixed-effects Poisson regression models compared the pandemic impact by gender. Results: The study included 105 women and 116 men, contributing to 122 publications, 214 IRB protocols, and 99 extramural funding applications. Controlling for potential confounders such as faculty rank and track (tenure vs. nontenure), women's publication count increased by 140% during the pandemic (95% confidence interval [CI]: +40% to +310%, p = 0.001) but was unchanged among men (95% CI: -30% to +50%; p > 0.999). The number of IRB protocols decreased from 2019 to 2021, but to a greater extent among men than women. In 2021, there was no gender difference in the number of extramural funding submissions. Conclusions: Among physician faculty at our medical school, women achieved parity with men on multiple measures of scholarly activity, and women's research productivity outpaced that of men in the same faculty track and rank. Targeted initiatives to support research among women faculty, junior investigators, and clinical investigators may have helped avert exacerbation of prepandemic gender disparities in research participation.

Gender Equity in Academic Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Departments: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

Gender equity in obstetrics and gynecology remains a barrier to career mobility and workplace satisfaction. This study aimed to evaluate gender equity for academic positions in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) divisions with an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited fellowship in the United States. This was a cross-sectional observational study of all FPMRS divisions with an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited fellowship program in the United States in July 2020 using publicly available demographic and academic data collected from online search engines. Gender equity in academic FPMRS was assessed by gender representation, academic appointment, and research productivity of each attending physician within the division. Research productivity was assessed using both the H-index with career length controlled for with the M-quotient. There were 348 attending physicians from 72 FPMRS divisions (198 female [56.9%], 150 male [43.1%]). A large percentage of female attending physicians were at the assistant professor level (75.8% [94 of 124]) when compared with their male counterparts (24.4% [30 of 124]; P < 0.001). Conversely, there were a larger percentage of male attending physicians (62.2% [56 of 90]) at the professor level when compared with their female counterparts (37.8% [34 of 90]; P < 0.001). There was no difference in research productivity between male and female attending physicians after controlling for career length with the M-quotient (P = 0.65). Only age (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.24) and the M-quotient (odds ratio, 36.17, 95% confidence interval, 8.57-152.73) were significantly associated with professorship. Our study found that there are more female attending physicians in FPMRS and that most are assistant professors. Male and female FPMRS attending physicians had similar research productivity with respect to their career lengths. Gender was not a determinant for achieving a "professor" appointment.

Research productivity and training support for doctoral students in the biological and biomedical sciences.

Training of doctoral students as part of the next generation of the biomedical workforce is essential for sustaining the scientific enterprise in the United States. Training primarily occurs at institutions of higher education, and these trainees comprise an important part of the workforce at these institutions. Federal investment in the support of doctoral students in the biological and biomedical sciences is distributed differently than the distribution of students across different types of institutions, for example, public vs private. Institutions in states that historically receive less federal support for research also receive less support for doctoral student training. Doctorates at different types of institution exhibit little difference in research productivity, with the exception of citations, and subsequent receipt of additional NIH awards. Thus, training outcomes, which are related to the quality of the student and training environment, are similar across different institutions. Research productivity of doctoral students does not correlate with the number of F31s awarded to an institution. Factors that correlate with F31 funding include R01 funding levels and program size. The findings suggest strategies for institutions to increase success at securing F31s and modification of policy to promote more equitable distribution of F31s across institutions.

30. Rise Above the Competition: How Do Plastic Surgery Residency Applicants with NCAA Experience Fare in the Residency Match?

Background: The integrated plastic surgery residency match continues to be highly competitive. Every year, some candidates are former NCAA athletes. While it is challenging to balance academic and athletic responsibilities, participation in NCAA sports may be predictive of continued success. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of participation in collegiate athletics on applicant anticipated rank and academic success. Methods: All applications received from 2017 to 2020 at a single institution were reviewed for participation in NCAA athletics (Division I-III). Our primary outcome of interest was applicant anticipated rank by letter of reference writers. Applications were also examined for demographic information, membership in AOA, number of research publications, and USMLE board certification exam scores. Results: After reviewing 885 applications, 61 applicants (6.89%) were former NCAA athletes. Former NCAA involvement was associated with the highest effect on anticipated (-0.22, p= 0.001) rank. Former NCAA involvement demonstrated the highest odds of receiving an anticipated ranking in the top 5 (OR 2.05, p=0.01). We found no significant difference in research productivity between the two groups, including first authorships or USMLE Step 1 board certification exam scores. A significant difference was seen in race distribution, with forty-five (80.4%) athlete applicants identifying as Caucasian, while 430 (56.5%) non-athletes identified as Caucasian (p=0.012). Conclusion: Former athletes applying to become integrated plastic surgery residents overcome the challenges of balancing athletic and academic pursuits with a higher anticipated rank in the integrated plastic surgery match while having comparable academic achievement.

Recruitment of women in neurosurgery: a 7-year quantitative analysis.

The authors aimed to characterize which US medical schools have the most female neurosurgery residents and to identify potential associations between medical school characteristics and successful recruitment of women pursuing a neurosurgery career. The authors evaluated a total of 1572 residents in US neurosurgery programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education as of February 2021, representing match cohorts from 2014 to 2020. The authors extracted US medical school characteristics and ranked schools based on the percentages of women graduates entering neurosurgery. They additionally studied yearly trends of the percentage of women constituting incoming neurosurgery resident cohorts as well as associations between female recruitment percentage and medical school characteristics using univariable and stepwise multivariable linear regression (including significant univariable factors). The cohort consisted of 1255 male and 317 (20%) female residents. Yearly trends indicated a significant drop in incoming female residents in 2016, followed by significant increases in 2017 and 2019. On multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with a higher average percentage of female graduates entering neurosurgery: total affiliated neurosurgery clinical faculty (β = 0.006, 95% CI 0.001-0.011, p = 0.01), allopathic versus osteopathic schools (β = 0.231, 95% CI 0.053-0.409, p = 0.01), and top 10 U.S. News & World Report ranking (β = 0.380, 95% CI 0.129-0.589, p < 0.01). When the number of female clinical faculty was added to the model, the variable was not statistically significant. Multivariable bibliometric analyses indicated a higher mean preresidency H-index for men, with an even greater gender difference identified in the 2021 H-index. This study characterizes which medical schools are most successful at recruiting female students who constituted the total neurosurgery resident workforce of the 2020-2021 academic year. The overall number of clinical neurosurgery faculty rather than faculty gender was independently associated with female recruitment. Gender differences in research productivity persisted with control for confounders and increased between preresidency and 2021 time points. Such understanding of factors that influence the recruitment of women can help improve female representation in neurosurgery residency training moving forward.

The relationship between parenting engagement and academic performance

Gender differences in research productivity have been well documented. One frequent explanation of these differences is disproportionate child-related responsibilities for women. However, changing social dynamics around parenting has led to fathers taking an increasingly active role in parenting. This demands a more nuanced approach to understanding the relationship between parenting and productivity for both men and women. To gain insight into associations between parent roles, partner type, research productivity, and research impact, we conducted a global survey that targeted 1.5 million active scientists; we received viable responses from 10,445 parents (< 1% response rate), thus providing a basis for exploratory analyses that shed light on associations between parenting models and research outcomes, across men and women. Results suggest that the gendered effect observed in production may be related by differential engagement in parenting: men who serve in lead roles suffer similar penalties for parenting engagement, but women are more likely to serve in lead roles and to be more engaged across time and tasks, therefore suffering a higher penalty. Taking a period of parental leave is associated with higher levels of productivity; however, the productivity advantage dissipates after six months for the US-sample, and at 12-months for the non-US sample. These results suggest that parental engagement is a more powerful variable to explain gender differences in academic productivity than the mere existence of children, and that policies should factor these labor differentials into account.

Gender Differences in the Research Productivity of Radiation Oncology Resident Graduates in the United States: 2015 to 2019

PurposeIt is well-documented that gender disparities exist in academic radiation oncology departments. The purpose of this study was to analyze gender differences in research productivity during residency among recent graduates of radiation oncology training programs in the United States (US). Methods and MaterialsWe used several publicly available sources to create a database of US radiation oncology residents who graduated between 2015 and 2019. We systematically collected gender information from the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System National Provider Identifier Registry and Medicare claims registry. Postresidency employment information was collected using several publicly available sources. PubMed was queried to identify first-author publications of residents. A secondary analysis of metadata including impact factor, number of citations, modified Hirsch index (h index), and type of publication was performed. A multivariable linear regression was performed to evaluate the effect of gender on research productivity during residency. ResultsThere were 910 total graduates identified during this period and who were entered into this database, of whom all had available gender information. Female trainees comprised 29.0% (n = 264) of RO residents and had fewer first-author publications and citations, had lower mean modified h index, and were published in journals with lower impact factors. On multivariable linear regression analysis, female gender was independently associated with decreased total number of publications (P = .005), mean number of citations (P < .001), and modified h index (P = .001) when controlling for residency size and advanced (PhD or master's) degrees. ConclusionsIn the US, female RO trainees had lower research productivity, which was not explained by advanced degrees or residency size. A significant gender gap in trainee research productivity persists, which has known implications in terms of academic achievement, promotions, and career trajectory. Future interventions to improve resident research productivity and mentorship are warranted.

The Productivity Puzzle in Invasion Science: Declining but Persisting Gender Imbalances in Research Performance

Abstract We analyzed 27,234 publications published since the rise of the field of invasion science in 1980 to evaluate the presence of gender differences in research productivity, the extent of collaboration, and the research impact of those differences. Our analysis revealed significantly fewer female than male authored publications, both per capita and as a group, and the underrepresentation of women as first and single authors persists despite improvements in the gender gap. At the current rate of increase, gender parity in first authorship will not be achieved until 2100, and men will continue to constitute the principal voice of first or single authors in invasion science. Women collaborate with fewer coauthors and are cited less frequently than men, on average, which may influence recruitment and retention to more senior academic positions. These gender disparities in this aspect of research performance suggest that, although the gender gap is lessening, women experience barriers in invasion science.

162 Recruiting Women Into Neurosurgery: A Quantitative Analysis of Feeder Medical School Characteristics

INTRODUCTION: Despite a recent increase in the number of women pursuing neurosurgery residency, medical school characteristics associated with the successful recruitment of female medical students into the field remain poorly studied. METHODS: A total of 1572 current residents in U.S. Accreditation-Council-for-Graduate-Medical-Education-accredited neurosurgery programs, representing match cohorts from 2014 to 2020, were evaluated. U.S. medical school characteristics such as class size and number of total and female clinical neurosurgery faculty were recorded. Medical schools were ranked based on the percentage of female graduates entering neurosurgery, and yearly trends of the percentage of females constituting incoming neurosurgery resident cohorts were studied. Associations between percent female recruitment and medical school characteristics were then evaluated using univariable and stepwise multivariable linear regression (including significant univariable factors). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 1255 male and 317 (20%) female residents. Yearly trends indicated a significant drop in incoming female residents in 2016 followed by significant increases in 2017 and 2019. The following factors were associated with a higher average percentage of female graduates entering neurosurgery on multivariable analysis: total affiliated neurosurgery clinical faculty (β = 0.006, 95% CI [0.001-0.011], p = 0.013), allopathic vs. osteopathic schools (β = 0.231, 95% CI [0.053-0.409], p = 0.011), and top-10 U.S. News ranking (β = 0.380, 95% CI [0.129-0.589], p = 0.002). Upon adding the number of female clinical faculty to the model, the variable was not statistically significant. Multivariable bibliometric analyses indicated a higher mean pre-residency H-index for males with an even greater gender difference identified in current H-index. CONCLUSION: This study characterizes which medical schools have recruited the most female students who are currently in neurosurgery residency. The overall number of clinical neurosurgery faculty rather than faculty gender was independently associated with female recruitment. Gender differences in research productivity persisted while controlling for confounders and increased between pre-residency and current time-points.

Subspecialty Selection Impacts Research Productivity and Faculty Rank of Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Faculty promotion and research productivity are important for the overall career trajectory of academic orthopaedic surgeons. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role that subspecialty and demographic factors play in research productivity and academic advancement among orthopaedic surgeons. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of academic rank among orthopaedic surgeons in 2018. We identified academic orthopaedic programs in the United States from the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) and collected publicly available data for surgeons, including fellowship training, gender, faculty rank, geographic region, and years since residency, from institutional websites. Research productivity was defined with the Hirsch index (h-index) from Scopus, and the m-index was calculated from the surgeon's h-index and the date of the first publication. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine the variables that are associated with associate professorship, full professorship, and the h-index. In this study, we identified and included 2,879 academic orthopaedic surgeons. Completion of a fellowship in foot and ankle (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.45 [1.17 to 5.15]), sports medicine (2.15 [1.12 to 4.15]), trauma (2.83 [1.42 to 5.66]), hand and upper extremity (2.20 [1.13 to 4.28]), musculoskeletal oncology (3.28 [1.49 to 7.21]), or upper-extremity reconstruction (3.20 [1.31 to 7.81]) was associated with associate professorship. Completion of a trauma fellowship was associated with full professorship (2.93 [1.27 to 6.77]). Completion of a fellowship in adult reconstruction (difference in least-squares means [95% confidence interval]: 5.01 [1.22 to 8.81]), sports medicine (4.52 [1.00 to 8.04]), spine (5.40 [1.63 to 9.18]), or upper-extremity reconstruction (10.64 [6.15 to 15.12]) or the completion of multiple fellowships (5.12 [1.27 to 8.94]) were independently associated with a higher h-index. Women had significantly lower h-indices than men at the assistant (median [interquartile range]: 3 [1 to 6] versus 4 [2 to 8]) and full professor (17 [12 to 26] versus 22 [13 to 34]) levels. There were no differences in the m-index between men and women at any academic rank. Orthopaedic subspecialty selection is independently associated with research productivity and academic rank. The differences in research productivity may be important to consider when evaluating orthopaedic surgeons for promotion. While female surgeons had lower h-indices than their male counterparts, this difference was not seen when using the m-index.

Geographical and Gender Inequalities in Health Sciences Studies: Testing Differences in Research Productivity, Impact, and Visibility

Geographical and Gender Inequalities in Health Sciences Studies: Testing Differences in Research Productivity, Impact, and Visibility

Factors Affecting Research Productivity of Trauma Surgeons

This study aimed to identify factors that promote and impede research participation and productivity by Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) surgeons. In addition, the study aimed to determine what changes can be implemented by surgical departments to improve this research productivity and granting. A 25-question anonymous research survey tool was offered to EAST surgeons. The questions analyzed factors including demographics, career accomplishments, current institution type, educational/research background, perceived barriers to research, and current research productivity, including grants. Chi-square tests were used to analyze significance at P < 0.05. The overall response rate was 26.2 per cent (445/1699). Most respondents reported not having any protected research time (86.3%), and no research resources were provided by their institution (78.7%). Factors that were significantly associated with greater research productivity included protected research time (P < 0.0001), having a mentor (P < 0.001), practicing in a university-affiliated hospital (P < 0.0001), publication(s) before completing residency training (P = 0.02), having institutional resources dedicated to research (P = 0.015), and male gender (P = 0.003). Age, race, marital status, and additional educational qualifications were not associated with statistically significant differences in research productivity in this study (P > 0.05). EAST surgeons are more likely to have scholarly productivity if they are supported with protected time, mentors, nonclinical staff dedicated to research, a history of research before completion of residency, and research resources from their institution. Barriers to research productivity include lack of institutional support, lack of protected research time, and increased regulatory policies.