Evaluation Of Research Productivity Research Articles

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

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.

Emerging Trends in Virtual Surgical Planning for Orthognathic Surgery: A Global Overview of Research and Publication Patterns

PurposeAnticipating trends and pursuing innovative ideas are imperative for the advancement of science. The objective of this study was to conduct a bibliometric analysis of three-dimensional (3D) virtual simulation in orthognathic surgery, explore its implications for clinical practice, and identify future publication trends through digital tools. MethodsThis study employed a retrospective bibliometric analysis using data obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The search strategy focused on articles related to orthognathic surgery and virtual simulation techniques. RStudio and bibliometrix tools were used to data mining. The independent variables retrieved from digital analysis were the emerging themes related to virtual planning in orthognathic surgery. The trends that we identified were facial aesthetics, digital workflow, personalized treatments, and complex cases. The primary outcome variable was the number of publications dedicated to virtual simulation in orthognathic surgery, along with secondary outcomes such as citation rates, language of publication, country of origin, institutional affiliations, and emerging research themes. Covariates included variables related to publication characteristics, author affiliations, and geographic distribution of publications. Publication analyses over time involved descriptive statistics, regression analysis, Pearson correlation tests, and graphical representation techniques. Statistical significance was set at a 95% confidence interval (P-value < 0.05). ResultsA comprehensive analysis of 987 articles reveals the impact of included authors, with a mean H-index of 62 (sd=18,4). The analysis further illuminates a discernible upward trend in publications on this subject, showcasing a linear pattern with a notable R2 value of 0.88 (p=0.021). English remains the predominant language of publication, accounting for 97.97% of articles, while contributions hailed from a diverse spectrum of 56 countries. Interestingly, a moderate correlation emerges between publication numbers and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita (r=0.30, p=0.044) and total area (r=0.30, p=0.032), whereas a more substantial correlation is evident with total population (r=0.61, p=0.034). Notably, the most cited article amassed 254 citations. Furthermore, a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.97 underscores the correlation between citation density and the year of publication. ConclusionThe bibliometric indicators provided insights for evaluating research productivity and the quality of research output. Emerging themes included facial aesthetics, 3D printing, and the utilization of custom-made templates and implants. This study holds relevance for maxillofacial surgeons, academics, and researchers alike.

Factors Associated with Research Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding in Academic Otology.

Bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index (h-index) and the more recently developed relative citation ratio (RCR), are utilized to evaluate research productivity. Our study evaluates demographics, research productivity, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in academic otology. Academic otologists were identified, and their demographics were collected using institutional faculty profiles (N = 265). Funding data were obtained using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports Database. The h-index was calculated using Scopus and mean (m-RCR) and weighted RCR (w-RCR) were calculated using the NIH iCite tool. H-index (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97-2.31, p = 0.069) or w-RCR (aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.231), was associated with receiving NIH funding. Men had greater h-index (16 vs. 9, p < 0.001) and w-RCR (51.8 vs. 23.0, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (1.3 vs. 1.3, p = 0.269) than women. Higher academic rank was associated with greater h-index and w-RCR (p < 0.001). Among assistant professors, men had greater h-index than women (9.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.025). At career duration 11-20 years, men had greater h-index (14.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.009) and w-RCR (52.7 vs. 25.8, p = 0.022) than women. The h-index has a strong relationship with NIH funding in academic otology. Similar h-index, m-RCR, and w-RCR between men and women across most academic ranks and career durations suggests production of similarly impactful research. The m-RCR may correct some deficiencies of time-dependent bibliometrics and its consideration in academic promotion and research funding allocation may promote representation of women in otology. N/A Laryngoscope, 2024.

A bibliometric performance analysis of publication productivity within pedagogy, andragogy, and heutagogy continuum: Outcomes of SciVal analytics

The pedagogy, andragogy, and heutagogy (PAH) continuum have been widely endorsed within higher education and online learning over the years. Thus, the evaluation of research productivity has become relevant due to the emerging development of the PAH continuum as a theoretical framework. This paper aims to explore the research productivity within the PAH continuum by performing a bibliometric performance analysis. An iterative search strategy was performed to identify PAH authors and then investigate their research productivity over a 5-year period (2017–2022) using the SciVal analytics instrument by Elsevier. Drawing upon the results from multiple bibliometric analyses, the study explores publication productivity specifically in relation to the PAH continuum. This study revealed that distance education, learning, teaching, professional development, and lifelong learning have been the most prominent research areas within the PAH continuum. Within that, related topics were identified, including online learning, mobile learning, e-learning, and educational technology.

Evaluation of Research Productivity Among Academic Cornea, External Diseases, and Refractive Surgery Ophthalmologists Using the Relative Citation Ratio.

The purpose of this study was to provide relative citation ratio (RCR) benchmark data for cornea and external diseases specialists. This is a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis. Subjects included were fellowship-trained cornea and external diseases faculty at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited institutions in the United States. Academic specialists were indexed using the National Institutes of Health iCite Web site. Publication count, mean RCR score, and weighted RCR score were obtained between October 2022 and January 2023 by examining PubMed-listed publications from 1980 to 2022. Data were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy. The main outcome measures were publication count, mean RCR value, and weighted RCR value. The cohort included 602 specialists from 112 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited institutions. These clinician-scientists produced highly impactful research with a median publication count of 15 (interquartile ranges 4-41), median RCR of 1.4 (interquartile ranges 0.91-1.88), and median-weighted RCR of 20.28 (5.3-66.69). Both academic rank and career length were associated with greater publication count and RCR values. Male sex was also associated with greater publications counts and RCR scores compared with female faculty. Acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy was associated with greater publication counts and weighted RCR scores but no difference in mean RCR scores. Academic cornea and external diseases specialists conduct high-impact research, with a median RCR of 1.4, exceeding the NIH standard value of 1. These data provide RCR benchmark data for the field to inform self, institutional, and departmental evaluations. These results also highlight a significant gender disparity in the field necessitating efforts to increase female representation and ensure equal opportunities.

Research Productivity and Impact in Foot and Ankle Surgery: Insights From Relative Citation Ratio Analysis of Recent Fellowship Graduates.

The relative citation ratio (RCR), a novel bibliometric tool supported by the National Institute of Health, provides a standardized approach to evaluate research productivity and impact across different fields. This study aims to evaluate RCR of fellowship-trained foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeons to analyze the influence of various surgeon demographics. Fellow names listed on the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society website were extracted from the year 2008 to 2009 to the year 2022 to 2023. Demographic information for each fellow was collected including sex, degree type, and academic title. The iCite database developed by the National Institute of Health was used to obtain total publications, mean RCR, weighted RCR, and change in RCR after fellowship graduation for each fellow. Univariate and multivariate analysis was conducted to predict these four parameters based on sex, degree type, academic position, and career longevity. Of the 820 fellows, 674 (82%) were male. Most fellows (n = 587, 71%) did not go on to hold academic positions. Multivariate analysis revealed that male sex (β = 2.32, P < 0.001), holding an academic position (β = 6.44, P < 0.001), holding a PhD (β = 22.96, P < 0.001), and a shorter length time since graduation (β = -0.50, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of number of total publications. Holding a DO degree was an independent predictor of decreased mean RCR (β = 0.39, P = 0.039). Finally, multivariate analysis revealed that male sex (β = 4.05, P = 0.003), a career in academics (β = 4.61, P < 0.001), and a shorter time since graduation (β = -0.45, P = 0.001) were associated with a larger weighted RCR. The findings highlight the importance of addressing gender disparities and promoting research opportunities across different programs. Moreover, academic institutions should provide adequate support and mentorship to early-career foot and ankle-trained orthopaedic surgeons to foster sustained research productivity.

Evaluation of Research Productivity among Academic Vitreoretinal Surgeons Using the Relative Citation Ratio

To provide relative citation ratio (RCR) benchmark data for the field of vitreoretinal surgery. Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis. Fellowship-trained vitreoretinal faculty at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited institutions. Academic vitreoretinal surgeons were individually indexed using the National Institutes of Health iCite Website. Publication count, mean RCR score, and weighted RCR score were collected for each author between June and July 2022 and included PubMed-listed articles from 1980 to 2022. Data were compared by gender, career duration, academic rank, and acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). Total number of publications, mean RCR value, and weighted RCR value. Our sample consisted of 677 academic vitreoretinal surgeons from 113 institutions. These physicians produced highly impactful research with a median publication count of 30 (interquartile range [IQR], 11-82), median RCR of 1.78 (IQR, 1.09-3.00), and median weighted RCR of 59.83 (14.31-195.78). Academic rank and career duration 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. Current academic vitreoretinal surgeons have high mean RCR values relative to the National Institutes of Health standard RCR value of 1. This benchmark data serves as a more accurate gauge of research impact within the vitreoretinal 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. The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health–supported relative citation ratio among American orthopedic spine surgery faculty: A new bibliometric measure of scientific influence

BackgroundPublication metrics have been traditionally used to compare research productivity amongst academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics lack field-normalization and are often biased towards time-dependent publication factors. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new, field-normalized, article-level metric, known as the “relative citation ratio” (RCR), that can be used to make accurate self, departmental, and cross-specialty comparisons of research productivity. This study evaluates the use of the RCR amongst academic orthopedic spine surgery faculty and analyzes physician factors associated with RCR values. MethodsA retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship trained orthopedic spine surgery (OSS) faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopedic surgery residency program. Mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. Student t-tests were used for two-group analyses whereas the analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) was used for between-group comparisons of three or more subgroups. Statistical significance was achieved at P < 0.05. ResultsA total of 502 academic OSS faculty members from 159 institutions were included in the analysis. Overall, OSS faculty were highly productive, with a median RCR of 1.62 (IQR 1.38-2.32) and a median weighted RCR of 68.98 (IQR 21.06-212.70). Advancing academic rank was associated with weighted RCR, career longevity was associated with mean RCR score, and male sex was associated with having increased mean and weighted RCR scores. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value above 1.0. ConclusionsAcademic orthopedic spine surgery faculty produce impactful research as evidenced by the high median RCR relative to the standard value set by the NIH of 1.0. Our data can be used to evaluate research productivity in the orthopedic spine community.

Metrics employed in the evaluation of research productivity: A systematic literature review

The present paper makes a systematic review of 131 articles on research productivity basing upon a model developed by Denyer and Tranfield. The current review paper analyzed the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the sample literature in the field of research productivity. The quantitative analysis incorporates the chronological distribution of articles, keyword wise distribution, form wise distribution, discipline wise distribution, publisher wise distribution, data sources used in the articles, most prolific journals of the publications and qualitative dimensions studied are top-cited articles and all the metrices used in these articles. The paper is based upon literature retrieved from Scopus bibliographic database and other online databases like Emerald, Taylor &amp; Francis, Google Scholar, JSTOR, ProQuest, and EBSCO for full-text articles. It was revealed that there is significant growth in the number of articles during the fourth decade (2011–2020) whereas the highest numbers of citations (1530) have been received during the third decade from 2001 to 2010. Journal articles appeared to be the predominant source of information. A wide range of metrices found to be used in the sample literature to analyze the research productivity namely basic metrics, metrics dealing with growth, collaboration and metrics at institute level and author level metrics. It will serve as a reference tool to the scholars and practitioners in the field who will be acquainted with the publications on research productivity as well as various metrices, laws of bibliometrics, statistical tools, used in the articles.

Evaluation of the Relative Citation Ratio Among Academic Orthopedic Hand Surgeons: A Novel Measure of Research Impact.

Background: Publication metrics such as article citation count and the Hirsch index (h-index) are used to evaluate research productivity among academic faculty. However, these bibliometric indices are not field-normalized and yield inaccurate cross-specialty comparisons. We evaluate the use of the relative citation ratio (RCR), a new field-normalized article-level metric developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), among academic orthopedic hand surgeons and analyze physician factors associated with RCR values.Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using the iCite database. Fellowship-trained orthopedic hand surgeons affiliated with accredited orthopedic surgery residency programs were included. Mean RCR, weighted RCR, and publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. Mean RCR represents the total number of citations per year of a publication divided by the average number of citations per year received by NIH-funded papers in the same field. Mean RCR serves as a measure of overall research impact. A value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. Weighted RCR is the sum of all article-level RCR scores and represents overall research productivity.Results: A total of 620 academic orthopedic hand surgeons from 164 programs were included. These physicians produced highly impactful research with a median RCR of 1.27 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.86-1.66). Weighted RCR was associated with advanced degree, advanced academic rank, and longer career duration.Conclusions: Fellowship-trained academic orthopedic hand surgeons produce highly impactful research. Our benchmark data can be used to assess grant outcomes, promotion, and continued evaluation of research productivity within the hand surgery community.

Global research mapping on reproductive health: a bibliometric visualisation analysis

PurposeThis study aims to examine the research productivity and network visualisation on reproductive health (RH) domain with several bibliometric indicators and applied visualisation approach in co-authorship, citation, co-occurrence of keywords and bibliographic coupling analysis in the area of RH.Design/methodology/approachThis study used bibliometric indicators to determine the highly productive authors, source title, documents and organisations. This study used Web of Science database and retrieved a total of 18,186 scientific publications on the domain of RH published during the period of 2010–2020. Data analysis was also performed using VOS viewer software and RStudio.FindingsThe findings discovered the increasing trends of research publications in reproductive health in past ten years. The USA UK, China and Australia were the top four productive countries in terms of publishing research in the arena, and “Kishsin DM” and “Hauser R” have secured in top two positions under highly prolific authors category. University of California, Harvard University and University of London were observed under the top three productive institutions in the domain. This study also revealed association and collaboration among authors, country and institutions in the visualisation analysis. The core findings of co-occurrence of keywords emphasised that “RH,” “assisted reproductive technology,” “women,” “pregnancy” and “in-vitro fertilization” were established frequently used keywords and have robust link strength.Practical implicationsThe findings will be helpful to the researchers to know about the status of latest trends and development of the domain. This study is also helpful to the library authority for collection development in the specific subject domain.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, there was no past study found on the evaluation of research productivity and network visualisation in the domain of RH, which is a globally important issue.

Primary headache research output and association with socioeconomic factors in Southeast Asia: a bibliometric analysis.

Although headache is one of the most common neurologic conditions with a high disease burden, primary data on headache research from Southeast Asia (SEA) was hypothesized to be inadequate. This study aimed to evaluate research productivity among the different countries in SEA and to determine the association between specific bibliometric indices and socioeconomic factors. A systematic search was conducted until June 10, 2020 in Scopus, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Index Medicus for South-East Asia Region to include all primary headache studies on migraine, tension-type headache, and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, with at least one author affiliated with a SEA country. Bibliometric indices, such as the number of publications and PlumX metrics, were obtained and correlated with the country-specific socioeconomic factors. We identified 153 articles. Most of the publications (n = 43, 28.1%) were epidemiologic studies and case reports/series (n = 25, 16.3%). Migraine was the most studied primary headache subtype. Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand were the major contributors to primary headache research in SEA. Only the percent gross domestic product for research and development correlated significantly with research productivity. Despite the high global burden of disease, research productivity on primary headache was low in SEA. The move towards a knowledge-based economy may drive research productivity in SEA.

COVID-19 and the emerging research trends in environmental studies: a bibliometric evaluation.

The ongoing pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global health emergency. Thousands of articles have been published to tackle this crisis. Here, a bibliometric study of the publications in environmental studies has been conducted to identify the emerging research trends in this field in the era of COVID-19. Bibliometric analysis serves as a useful tool to evaluate research productivity and scholarly trends in a field. For this, publications were searched in nine environment-related subject categories indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) database of the Web of Science Core Collection. A bibliometric evaluation of 495 relevant documents was performed to identify various essential research indicators, including the type of the publication, the most prominent journals, subject categories, authors, institutions, and the countries, that contributed significantly to this theme. Major focus of this bibliometric study is to illustrate the potential research hotspots emerged during this pandemic. It has been found that significant amount of research has been conducted for the assessment of environmental quality and its contribution in environmental transmission of COVID-19. In addition to its positive impacts on environment, COVID-19 has contributed indirectly in worsening many environmental threats such as increased exposure to disinfectants and antimicrobials, poor solid waste management, and food insecurity. Researchers have also been focusing on the strategies for the planning of post-COVID-19 cities and buildings and to protect the ecology. This bibliometric study allowed the visualization of research agenda in the field of environmental studies during this pandemic.

Ranking of Sustainability Journals Using the Author Affiliation Index and Comparison to Other Journal Metrics

An important component in evaluating research productivity is the quality of the academic journal. For this reason, the objective of this paper is to analyze the Author Affiliation Index (AAI) in sustainability field journals as a preliminary study to offer some insights into quality rating of journals in this chosen discipline. The AAI of a journal is defined as the percentage of the journal’s articles published by authors affiliated with a base set of high-quality academic universities or institutions. We conducted an evaluation of the top 50 journals in environmental studies indexed in the category Social Science in the Web of Science (WOS) database in 2018 and the top-notch 50 universities worldwide with master or postgraduate programs in the disciplines of management and sustainability studies. The results obtained demonstrate that there is a low AAI score on average in the sustainability field compared with other disciplines and the potential reason for such low scoring is probably caused by the high number of co-authors collaborating in environmental studies related journals. Although there is no agreement reached in terms of journal ratings by AAIs and other citation and survey-based measures, we can confirm certain elite affiliations effect which leading sustainability journals have higher concentrations of authors who are affiliated with elite institutions, however, such elite affiliation effect is on average much lower compared with other disciplines as finance, accounting or transportation, etc.

Examination of correlates of H-index as a measure of research productivity for library and information science faculty in the United States and Canada

This research analyzes research productivity among Library and Information Science (LIS) faculty based on number of publications and citations throughout the careers of tenure-track and tenured professors in LIS schools with an American Library Association-accredited Master of LIS program. The h-index is examined as a representative measure of LIS faculty output using a regression analysis. Based on observed variance in h-index and other research productivity measures across LIS schools, a regression is conducted based on several variables that distinguish these schools: Research 1 status, proportion of faculty who are full professors, where the university is located, whether the LIS school has a Ph.D. program, and whether the school is a member of the iSchool consortium. Findings indicate that h-index effectively represents the relative number of publications and citations a professor has while mitigating the impact of a few highly-cited publications that are not representative of an entire body of work. In addition to Research 1 status and proportion of full professors, iSchool membership is identified as a factor that influences a LIS school’s h-index vale. These findings have relevance to LIS readers interested in analyzing productivity of individual researchers and schools, researchers interested in the measurement of the effect of the h-index value on evaluating research productivity, and readers interested in the impact of the iSchool movement on research in LIS.

ANÁLISIS BIBLIOMETRICO DE LAS TESIS DOCTORALES ESPAÑOLAS EN ARTES MARCIALES Y PUBLICACIONES CIENTÍFICAS DE SUS AUTORES

O objetivo é verificar se a obtenção do título de Doutor é um fator que promove a formação de novos investigadores. Apresentar o índice h dos doutores-autores, bem como a relação que existe com as medidas utilizadas para avaliar a produtividade da pesquisa, como número de artigos e índice de citações. Mediante o banco de dados TESEO e a Web of Science obteve-se os registros do trabalho. Os resultados mostraram um total de 86 teses (2,2 teses/ano), mais de 285 trabalhos na Web of Science, com uma média de 5,81 trabalhos/autor. O número médio de consultas por trabalho é de 4,25, enquanto o número de consultas por autor é de 24,73. O índice geral h-index é 2.02 por autor. Concluímos baixa produção de teses de doutorado em Espanha em artes marciais. Mais de metade dos autores doutores-autores publicam trabalhos na Web of Science com notável difusão científica de suas teses.

An Evaluation of h-Index as a Measure of Research Productivity Among Canadian Academic Plastic Surgeons.

Evaluation of research productivity among plastic surgeons can be complex. The Hirsch index (h-index) was recently introduced to evaluate both the quality and quantity of one's research activity. It has been proposed to be valuable in assessing promotions and grant funding within academic medicine, including plastic surgery. Our objective is to evaluate research productivity among Canadian academic plastic surgeons using the h-index. A list of Canadian academic plastic surgeons was obtained from websites of academic training programs. The h-index was retrieved using the Scopus database. Relevant demographic and academic factors were collected and their effects on the h-index were analyzed using the t test and Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test. Nominal and categorical variables were analyzed using χ2 test and 1-way analysis of variance. Univariate and multivariate models were built a priori. All P values were 2 sided, and P < .05 was considered to be significant. Our study on Canadian plastic surgeons involved 175 surgeons with an average h-index of 7.6. Over 80% of the surgeons were male. Both univariable and multivariable analysis showed that graduate degree (P < .0001), academic rank (P = .03), and years in practice (P < .0001) were positively correlated with h-index. Limitations of the study include that the Scopus database and the websites of training programs were not always up-to-date. The h-index is a novel tool for evaluating research productivity in academic medicine, and this study shows that the h-index can also serve as a useful metric for measuring research productivity in the Canadian plastic surgery community. Plastic surgeons would be wise to familiarize themselves with the h-index concept and should consider using it as an adjunct to existing metrics such as total publication number.

Researcher and Author Impact Metrics: Variety, Value, and Context.

Numerous quantitative indicators are currently available for evaluating research productivity. No single metric is suitable for comprehensive evaluation of the author-level impact. The choice of particular metrics depends on the purpose and context of the evaluation. The aim of this article is to overview some of the widely employed author impact metrics and highlight perspectives of their optimal use. The h-index is one of the most popular metrics for research evaluation, which is easy to calculate and understandable for non-experts. It is automatically displayed on researcher and author profiles on citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. Its main advantage relates to the combined approach to the quantification of publication and citation counts. This index is increasingly cited globally. Being an appropriate indicator of publication and citation activity of highly productive and successfully promoted authors, the h-index has been criticized primarily for disadvantaging early career researchers and authors with a few indexed publications. Numerous variants of the index have been proposed to overcome its limitations. Alternative metrics have also emerged to highlight ‘societal impact.’ However, each of these traditional and alternative metrics has its own drawbacks, necessitating careful analyses of the context of social attention and value of publication and citation sets. Perspectives of the optimal use of researcher and author metrics is dependent on evaluation purposes and compounded by information sourced from various global, national, and specialist bibliographic databases.

Ranking Accounting Journals by Topical Area and Methodology

ABSTRACTThis paper presents rankings of accounting journals disaggregated by topical area (AIS, audit, financial, managerial, tax, and other) and methodology (analytical, archival, experimental, and other). We find that only for the financial topical area and archival methodology does the traditional top-3 characterization of the best journals accurately describe what journals publish the most-cited work. For all other topic areas and methodologies, the top-3 characterization does not describe what journals publish the most-cited work. For only analytical research does the traditional top-6 journal characterization accurately describe what journals publish the most-cited work. In AIS, the traditional top-3/-6 journals are even less representative, as only one traditional top-3 journal is listed among the six journals publishing the most-cited AIS work, and only three of the traditional top-6 journals are in this list. In addition to creating journal rankings using citations, we create rankings using a unique measure of the attention given by stakeholders outside of the academy. With this measure we find similar results; the traditional top journals are not publishing the articles that receive the most attention in some topical areas. The results call into question whether individuals and institutions should rely solely on the traditional top-3/-6 journal lists for evaluating research productivity and impact.JEL Classifications: M4; M40; M41; M42; M49.Data Availability: Requests for data may be made to the authors.

Research productivity of doctor of physical therapy faculty promoted in the southeastern United States

ABSTRACTBackground: Little information exists on the research productivity of successfully promoted tenure-track Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) faculty.Objective: To determine the research productivity that typically results in successful promotion.Design: We collected publicly available curriculum vitae (CVs) from faculty currently in accredited DPT programs and who had been successfully promoted from an institution in the southeastern USA from 2000 through 2016.Total publication count, journal impact factor, funding, citations, and other metrics were analysed from 45 subjects of 22 of the 64 CAPTE-accredited DPT programs in the southeast.Results: None of the studied metrics were normally distributed with time to promotion as determined by a Shapiro-Wilk test. These faculty exhibited a median publication count of 4, range 0 to 43; median of average citation count of 12.4, range 0 to 87.25; median of average journal impact factor of 2.866, range 0 to 6.280; median external funding received of $9910, range $0.00 to $19 543 198; and median author h-index of 3, range 0 to 17. The median number of years before promotion was 6, ranging from 3 to 13 years. Linear regression analysis indicates a poor fit with no significant correlation between years before promotion and any of the studied metrics. No correlation between journal impact factor and number of citations was observed (m = −0.22, p = 0.728, R2 = 0.0003). Prior to promotion 31% (14 of 45) did not receive external funding and 24% (11 of 45) had a 0 h-index. The Carnegie Classification of the institution did not significantly correlate with research productivity metrics in this dataset (p = 0.213).Conclusion: While faculty unsuccessful in promotion were not identifiable using this method, this research can be used by faculty and committees to evaluate research productivity against regional data and promote competitive standards with peer institutions.Abbreviations: CAPTE: Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapist Education; DPT: Doctor of Physical Therapy