First Author Publications Research Articles

A Bibliometric Analysis of Ophthalmology Resident Research Productivity in the United States.

Background The extent and impact of ophthalmology resident scholarly output is not well known. The authors aim to quantify scholarly activity of ophthalmology residents during residency and assess what factors may be associated with greater research productivity of these residents. Material and Methods Ophthalmology residents who graduated in 2021 were identified from their respective program Web sites. Bibliometric data published by these residents between the beginning of their postgraduate year 2 (July 1, 2018) until 3 months after graduation (September 30, 2021) were captured through searches via PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The association of the following factors with greater research productivity numbers was analyzed: residency tier, medical school rank, sex, doctorate degree, type of medical degree, and international medical graduate status. Results We found 418 ophthalmology residents from 98 residency programs. These residents published a mean (±standard deviation [SD]) number of 2.68 ± 3.81 peer-reviewed publications, 2.39 ± 3.40 ophthalmology-related publications, and 1.18 ± 1.96 first-author publications each. The mean (±SD) Hirsch index (h-index) for this cohort was 0.79 ± 1.17. Upon multivariate analysis, we discovered significant correlations between both residency tier and medical school rank and all bibliometric variables assessed. Pairwise comparisons revealed that residents from higher tier programs had greater research productivity numbers than those from lower tier programs. Conclusion We obtained bibliometric standards for ophthalmology residents on a national scale. Residents who graduated from higher-ranked residency programs and medical schools possessed higher h-indices and published more peer-reviewed publications, ophthalmology-related articles, and first-author publications.

Research performance of academic psychologists in the United Kingdom

Research performance metrics inform decision making across the higher education sector. In this study we calculated up-to-date lifetime bibliometric research performance norms for academic psychologists in the UK, stratified by academic level and university mission group. Our performance metrics were publications, citations, h-index scores, first-author publications and average SJRs (SCImago Journal Ranks) for published in journals. These metrics were extracted from Scopus for a representative sample of 1339 academic psychologists employed at UK universities offering BPS (British Psychological Society) accredited undergraduate courses. We found that lifetime performance increased with seniority, though not in the predictable manner observed overseas. Academic psychologists in the Russell Group outperformed those outside of the Russell Group on all metrics, but these differences were largely due to the very strong research performance of the Russell Group professoriate, and could not be accounted for by the tendency for Russell Group academics to have been research active for a longer period of time than their equivalents outside the group. Overall, the research performance of UK academic psychologists was comparable to that of their Australian equivalents. Our research performance norms will be useful for benchmarking at the individual, departmental and institutional levels. However, they must be interpreted in context and considered alongside other indicators of scholarly productivity and performance.

Career Progression and Research Productivity of Women in Academic Cardiothoracic Surgery

BackgroundThe objective of this work was to delineate career progression and research productivity of women practicing cardiothoracic surgery in the academic setting. MethodsCardiothoracic surgeons at the 79 accredited US cardiothoracic surgery training programs in 2020 were included in this cross-sectional analysis. Data regarding subspecialization, training, practice history, and publications were gathered from public sources including department websites, CTSNet, and Scopus. ResultsA total of 1065 surgeons (51.3% cardiac, 32.1% thoracic, 16.6% congenital) were identified. Women accounted for 10.6% (113) of the population (7.9% of cardiac, 15.5% of thoracic, 9.6% of congenital surgeons). The median number of cardiothoracic surgeons per institution was 12 (interquartile range [IQR], 10-17), with a median of 1 woman (IQR, 0-2). Fifteen of 79 programs (19%) had no women. Among women faculty 5.3% were clinical instructors, 51.3% were assistant professors, 23.0% were associate professors, 16.8% were full professors, and 3.5% had unspecified titles (vs 2.0%, 32.9%, 23.0%, 37.5%, and 4.6% among men, respectively; P < .001). Women and men authored a comparable number of first-author (0.4 [IQR, 0.0-1.3] vs 0.5 [IQR, 0.0-1.1], P = .56) publications per year but fewer last-author (0.1 [IQR, 0.0-0.7] vs 0.4 [IQR, 0.0-1.3], P < .0001) and total publications per year (2.7 [IQR, 1.0-6.2] vs 3.7 [IQR, 1.3-7.8], P = .05) than men. The H-index was lower for women than for men overall (8.0 [IQR, 3.0-15.0] vs 15.0 [IQR, 7.0-28.0], P < .001) but was similar between men and women who had been practicing for 10 to 20 years. ConclusionsGender disparities persist in academic cardiothoracic surgery. Efforts should be made to support women in achieving senior roles and academic productivity.

Disparities in Research during Plastic Surgery Training: How Can We Level the Playing Field?

Background:Lack of female and ethnically underrepresented in medicine (UIM) surgeons remains concerning in academic plastic surgery. One barrier to inclusion may be unequal opportunity to publish research. This study evaluates the extent of this challenge for plastic surgery trainees and identifies potential solutions.Methods:Data were collected on academic plastic surgeons' research productivity during training. Bivariate analysis compared publication measures between genders and race/ethnicities at different training stages (pre-residency/residency/clinical fellowship). Multivariate analysis determined training experiences independently associated with increased research productivity.Results:Overall, women had fewer total publications than men during training (8.89 versus 12.46, P = 0.0394). Total publications were similar between genders before and during residency (P > 0.05 for both) but lower for women during fellowship (1.32 versus 2.48, P = 0.0042). Women had a similar number of first-author publications during training (3.97 versus 5.24, P = 0.1030) but fewer middle-author publications (4.70 versus 6.81, P = 0.0405). UIM and non-UIM individuals had similar productivity at all training stages and authorship positions (P > 0.05 for all). Research fellowship completion was associated with increased total, first-, and middle-author training publications (P < 0.001 for all).Conclusions:Less research productivity for female plastic surgery trainees may reflect a disparity in opportunity to publish. Fewer middle-author publications could indicate challenges with network-building in a predominately male field. Despite comparable research productivity during training relative to non- UIM individuals, UIM individuals remain underrepresented in academic plastic surgery. Creating research fellowships for targeting underrepresented groups could help overcome these challenges.

PD30-06 TRENDS IN PUBMED-INDEXED RESEARCH IN MATCHED UROLOGY APPLICANTS: YEARLY ANALYSIS OF THE 2017-2021 MATCH CYCLES

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022PD30-06 TRENDS IN PUBMED-INDEXED RESEARCH IN MATCHED UROLOGY APPLICANTS: YEARLY ANALYSIS OF THE 2017-2021 MATCH CYCLES David E. Hinojosa-Gonzalez, Dimitar V. Zlatev, Anton Wintner, Wesley A. Mayer, Ruslan Korets, and Brian H. Eisner David E. Hinojosa-GonzalezDavid E. Hinojosa-Gonzalez More articles by this author , Dimitar V. ZlatevDimitar V. Zlatev More articles by this author , Anton WintnerAnton Wintner More articles by this author , Wesley A. MayerWesley A. Mayer More articles by this author , Ruslan KoretsRuslan Korets More articles by this author , and Brian H. EisnerBrian H. Eisner More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002578.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Research experience and authorship of peer-reviewed publications are important components of the residency application. This study aims to determine indexed research output of matched urology applicants and examine yearly trends between match-cycles. METHODS: The resident rosters of 145 urology programs were screened for matched applicants. PubMed-indexed publications prior to starting residency were recorded and further analyzed to determine authorship role, relation to urology and journal ranking. Journal ranking was extracted from scimagojr, with the top 25% journals of the index considered Q1. Gathered data was analyzed in RStudio. RESULTS: Data was successfully extracted from 131 out of 145 urology residency programs (90%) for a total of 1,655 matched applicants spanning the 2017-2021 match cycles. Mean and median total publications were 2.39 and 1 respectively (range 0-60). Mean and median first-authored publications were 0.75 and 0 (range 0-19), while mean and median urology publications were 1.57 and 0 (range 0-52). First-authored urology research had a mean of 0.57 and a median of 0 (0-18). There has been a significant trend of increased publications among matched urology applicants from 2017 to 2021. Linear regression modelling of research productivity and match years revealed a significant increase in publications per year (adjusted β 0.019, p=0.043). Mean and median total publications for 2017 were 1.82 and 1 (0-36) respectively, 2.22 and 1 (0-52) for 2018, 2.19 and 1 (0-38) for 2019, 2.98 and 1 (0-40) for 2020 and 2.70 and 2 (0-32) for 2021 (p=<.001). Findings are summarized in Table 1. CONCLUSIONS: Research productivity has increased from 2017 to 2021. However, there is still a wide range of urology research productivity amongst successful urology applicants. Source of Funding: No funding was received © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e512 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information David E. Hinojosa-Gonzalez More articles by this author Dimitar V. Zlatev More articles by this author Anton Wintner More articles by this author Wesley A. Mayer More articles by this author Ruslan Korets More articles by this author Brian H. Eisner More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...

Pearls of wisdom for aspiring physician-scientist residency applicants and program directors.

Postgraduate physician-scientist training programs (PSTPs) enhance the experiences of physician-scientist trainees following medical school graduation. PSTPs usually span residency and fellowship training, but this varies widely by institution. Applicant competitiveness for these programs would be enhanced, and unnecessary trainee anxiety relieved, by a clear understanding of what factors define a successful PSTP matriculant. Such information would also be invaluable to PSTP directors and would allow benchmarking of their admissions processes with peer programs. We conducted a survey of PSTP directors across the US to understand the importance they placed on components of PSTP applications. Of 41 survey respondents, most were from internal medicine and pediatrics residency programs. Of all components in the application, two elements were considered very important by a majority of PSTP directors: (a) having one or more first-author publications and (b) the thesis advisor’s letter. Less weight was consistently placed on factors often considered more relevant for non-physician-scientist postgraduate applicants — such as US Medical Licensing Examination scores, awards, and leadership activities. The data presented here highlight important metrics for PSTP applicants and directors and suggest that indicators of scientific productivity and commitment to research outweigh traditional quantitative measures of medical school performance.

Establishing CREATE: lessons learned in setting up a training environment for early-career researchers in respiratory medicine

BackgroundThe purpose of the National Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Pulmonary Fibrosis (CRE-PF) is to improve and extend the lives of patients living with pulmonary fibrosis through the development of a comprehensive and integrated program of basic and clinical research and education across Australia. A key objective of the CRE-PF was establishment of a unique national training scheme, CREATE, for early-career researchers (ECRs) in respiratory research. CREATE ECRs are broadly drawn from two main fields of researchers: clinicians and scientists, where clinicians tend to be involved in part-time translational research and scientists are involved in broad scientific research including laboratory or genetic research, health economics or population research.MethodsWe describe the CREATE Program which, with limited budget and the assistance of key organisations, has provided funding opportunities (scholarships, fellowships, prizes, travel and collaboration grants), professional development (mentoring program, symposia, presentation opportunities and on-line training) and fostered a connected, supportive research community for respiratory ECRs.ResultsThe CREATE program has successfully fostered the development of the supported researchers, contributing substantially to the future of pulmonary fibrosis research in Australia. During the life of the program the CRE-PF has offered 10 PhD scholarships and five postdoctoral fellowships, awarded 13 travel grants and three grants to promote collaboration between ECRs from different institutes. A mentoring program has been established and CREATE Symposia have been held in association with key meetings. During COVID-19 restrictions, a series of virtual research meetings has offered 12 CREATE ECRs from seven universities the opportunity to present their research to a national audience.CREATE research-related achievements are impressive, including over 80 first-author publications by ECRs, and many conference presentations. Contributions to the research community, measured by committee membership, is also strong.ConclusionsIn spite of a very limited budget, wide geographic distribution of participants and the multi-disciplinary nature of the cohort, we have succeeded in providing a unique, supportive academic development environment for CREATE ECRs. Lessons learned in the process of developing this program include the importance of leveraging funding, being flexible, building networks and seeking and responding to ECR input.

An analysis of publication trends of orthopedic surgery residency graduates in relation to academic achievement.

Traditionally, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires residency programs to implement research and other scholarly activities into their training curriculum. Encouraging residents to publish during residency is believed to promote research throughout their careers; however, no study has attempted to quantify research productivity among orthopedic surgery residents before, during, and after residency. To determine whether publishing in peer-reviewed journals during orthopedic residencies was an indicator of continued academic achievement after graduation. This study was observational in nature and employed a cross-sectional design. We examined whether research outcomes during orthopedic residency was associated with academic advancement or continued research involvement after residency. We identified 201 orthopedic residency programs on the Doximity website and randomly selected 50 to include in our sample. Of these programs, graduate rosters for 31 programs were located and subsequently included. Of the 341 graduates identified, we recorded the number of peer-reviewed publications, H-indices, fellowships, and whether the graduate pursued a career in private practice or academia. Orthopedic residency graduates from 31 programs published a total of 1923 peer-reviewed manuscripts. On average, residents had a total of 5.6 publications and an h-index of 3.2. Residents entering academia and pursuing fellowships had a significantly higher total number of publications, higher number of first-author publications, and greater H-indices compared to those who did not enter academia or pursue a fellowship. Increased research productivity was associated with continued academic pursuits and an increased likelihood of pursuing fellowship training after residency.

‘The great publication race’ vs ‘abandon paper counting’: Benchmarking ECR publication and co-authorship rates over past 50 years to inform research evaluation

Background: Publication and co-authorship rates have been increasing over decades. In response, calls are being made to restrict the number of publications included in research evaluations. Yet there is little evidence to guide publication expectations and inform research evaluation for early career researchers (ECRs). Methods: Here we examine the early career publication and co-authorship records between 1970 and 2019 of &gt;140,000 authors of 2.8 million publications, to identify how publication and co-authorship rates have changed over the last 50 years. This examination is conducted in order to develop benchmarks of median publication rates for sensibly evaluating ECR research productivity, and to explore success in meeting these benchmarks with different co-authorship strategies using regression models. Results: Publication rates of multidisciplinary ECRs publishing in Nature, Science and PNAS have increased by 46% over the last 50 years and that publications rates in a set of disciplinary journals have increased by 105%. Co-authorship rates have increased even more, particularly for the multidisciplinary sample which now has 572% more co-authors per publication. Benchmarks based on median publication rates for all authors increased from one publication per year at the start of a career, to four publications per year after 10 years of publishing, and one first-author publication across all years. The probability of meeting these benchmarks increases when authors publish with different co-authors, and first authorship rates decrease for ECRs with many co-authors per publication. Conclusion: This evidence could be used to inform sensible publishing expectations for ECRs and the institutions they work for, and to inform calls to limit the number of publications produced by researchers and those used in research evaluations.

Analyzing the Role of Research in the Radiation Oncology Match

PurposeProgram directors consider scholarly output to be integral in matching applicants with radiation oncology residencies. However, applicants’ research productivity can be quantified in several ways, and the results can be misleading for both applicants and program directors. We conducted a bibliometric analysis to quantify the research productivity of applicants who had successfully matched to radiation oncology residencies and to test for associations between research productivity and residency program rankings. Methods and MaterialsWe identified U.S. radiation oncology residency programs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website and sorted the findings into 4 tiers based on the programs’ reputation and research output per Doximity's Residency Navigator. First-year (post-graduate year-2) radiation oncology residents starting in 2020 were identified on residency program websites. Residents’ research productivity was estimated by identifying peer-reviewed research articles (published before the residency applications began) via PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for each resident. Bibliometric variables were analyzed for potential association with matching to higher-tier residencies. ResultsWe identified 187 first-year residents in 83 U.S. residency programs. The mean number of National Resident Matching Program publications (which was self-reported and included presentations and abstracts) was 18.3 per applicant; the mean (± standard deviation) peer-reviewed publications was 2.47 (±2.88) per resident. Multivariate analysis showed that number of first-author publications was associated with matching to a higher-tier program, based on the program's reputation (P = .019) and research output (P = .010); numbers of radiation oncology–specific publications (P = .039) and h-index (P = .024) correlated with matching to a higher-tier residency based on the program's research output. ConclusionsThe number of first-author publications was significantly associated with matriculating into a higher-tier residency ranked by both reputation and research output. Significant correlations were also found for number of radiation oncology–specific publications and h-index. Applicants may find publishing meaningful radiation oncology articles, especially as first author, to be more valuable than meeting National Resident Matching Program numbers.

Impact of international research fellows in neurosurgery: results from a single academic center.

International research fellows have been historically involved in academic neurosurgery in the United States (US). To date, the contribution of international research fellows has been underreported. Herein, the authors aimed to quantify the academic output of international research fellows in the Department of Neurosurgery at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Research fellows with Doctor of Medicine (MD), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), or MD/PhD degrees from a non-US institution who worked in the Hopkins Department of Neurosurgery for at least 6 months over the past decade (2010-2020) were included in this study. Publications produced during fellowship, number of citations, and journal impact factors (IFs) were analyzed using ANOVA. A survey was sent to collect information on personal background, demographics, and academic activities. Sixty-four international research fellows were included, with 42 (65.6%) having MD degrees, 17 (26.6%) having PhD degrees, and 5 (7.8%) having MD/PhD degrees. During an average 27.9 months of fellowship, 460 publications were produced in 136 unique journals, with 8628 citations and a cumulative journal IF of 1665.73. There was no significant difference in total number of publications, first-author publications, and total citations per person among the different degree holders. Persons holding MD/PhDs had a higher number of citations per publication per person (p = 0.027), whereas those with MDs had higher total IFs per person (p = 0.048). Among the 43 (67.2%) survey responders, 34 (79.1%) had nonimmigrant visas at the start of the fellowship, 16 (37.2%) were self-paid or funded by their country of origin, and 35 (81.4%) had mentored at least one US medical student, nonmedical graduate student, or undergraduate student. International research fellows at the authors' institution have contributed significantly to academic neurosurgery. Although they have faced major challenges like maintaining nonimmigrant visas, negotiating cultural/language differences, and managing self-sustainability, their scientific productivity has been substantial. Additionally, the majority of fellows have provided reciprocal mentorship to US students.

The Academic Impact of Advanced Clinical Fellowship Training among General Thoracic Surgeons

Advanced clinical fellowship training has become a popular option for surgical trainees seeking to bolster their clinical training and expertise. However, the long-term academic impact of this additional training following a traditional thoracic surgery fellowship is unknown. This study aimed to delineate the impact of an advanced clinical fellowship on subsequent research productivity and advancement in academic career among general thoracic surgeons. Using an internally constructed database of active, academic general thoracic surgeons who are current faculty at accredited cardiothoracic surgery training programs within the United States, surgeons were dichotomized according to whether an advanced clinical fellowship was completed or not. Academic career metrics measured by research productivity, scholarly impact (H-index), funding by the National Institutes of Health, and academic rank were compared. Among 285 general thoracic surgeons, 89 (31.2%) underwent an advanced fellowship, whereas 196 (68.8%) did not complete an advanced fellowship. The most commonly pursued advanced fellowship was minimally invasive thoracic surgery (32.0%). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of gender, international medical training, or postgraduate education. Those who completed an advanced clinical fellowship were less likely to have completed a dedicated research fellowship compared to those who had not completed any additional clinical training (58.4% vs. 74.0%, p = 0.0124). Surgeons completing an advanced clinical fellowship demonstrated similar cumulative first-author publications (p = 0.4572), last-author publications (p = 0.7855), H-index (p = 0.9651), National Institutes of Health funding (p = 0.7540), and years needed to advance to associate professor (p = 0.3410) or full rank professor (p = 0.1545) compared to surgeons who did not complete an advanced fellowship. These findings persisted in sub-analyses controlling for surgeons completing a dedicated research fellowship. Academic general thoracic surgeons completing an advanced clinical fellowship demonstrate similar research output and ascend the academic ladder at a similar pace as those not pursuing additional training.

Publication Trends and Their Relationship With Academic Success Among Dermatology Residents: Cross-sectional Analysis.

Involvement in scholarly activities is considered to be one of the foundational pillars of medical education. This study aims to investigate publication rates before, during, and after residency to determine whether research productivity throughout medical training correlates with future academic success and research involvement. We successfully identified a list of 296 graduates from 25 US dermatology residency programs from the years 2013-2015. The publication history for each graduate was compiled using Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The Pearson correlation test and linear regression were used to assess the relationship between research productivity and continued academic success after residency graduation. Before residency, graduates published a mean of 1.9 (SD 3.5) total publications and a mean of 0.88 (SD 1.5) first-author publications. During residency, graduates published a mean of 2.7 (SD 3.6) total publications and a mean of 1.39 (SD 2.0) first-author publications. Graduates who pursued a fellowship had more total publications (t294=-4.0; P<.001), more first-author publications (t294=-3.9; P<.001), and a higher h-index (t294=-3.8; P=.002). Graduates who chose to pursue careers in academic medicine had more mean total publications (t294=-7.5; P<.001), more first-author publications (t294=-5.9; P<.001), and a higher mean h-index (t294=-6.9; P<.001). Graduates with one or more first-author publications before residency were 1.3 times more likely to pursue a career in academic medicine (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5). Graduates who pursued a fellowship were also 1.9 times more likely to pursue a career in academic medicine (adjusted odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.2). Our results suggest that research productivity before and during residency training are potential markers for continued academic success and research involvement after completing dermatology residency training.

Self-reported positive impact of mentored clinical research training is associated with academic success in hematology

The American Society of Hematology Clinical Research Training Institute (CRTI) is a mentored training program for hematology fellows and junior faculty. Our objective was to determine whether the self-reported impact of CRTI on research retention, career development, and connectedness to hematology investigators was associated with academic success. A survey was distributed in January 2020 to alumni who participated in the program from 2003 to 2019. It focused on the impact of CRTI on retention in research, facilitation of career development, understanding of requirements to succeed, and feelings of connectedness to investigators. These questions were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Outcomes were grants, publications, and invited lectures; these were abstracted from a submitted curriculum vitae. Of 334 eligible alumni, 321 responded (response rate of 96.1%). Of these, 250 (77.9%) agreed that CRTI was instrumental to research retention, 268 (83.5%) agreed that CRTI facilitated career development, 296 (92.2%) agreed that CRTI allowed a better understanding of requirements to succeed in research, and 289 (90.0%) agreed that CRTI increased connectedness to hematology investigators. Those who agreed with these CRTI impacts had significantly more first-author publications. Those who agreed that CRTI was instrumental to retention, facilitated career development, and increased connectedness had significantly more protected time for research. Self-reported perception that CRTI had an impact on research retention, career development, and connectedness to hematology investigators was significantly associated with more publications and percent effort in research. Clinical research training programs should identify and implement approaches to enhance these characteristics.

Who profits from the Canadian nanotechnology reward system? Implications for gender-responsible innovation

Gender equality is one of the primary dimensions of responsible research and innovation. Based on bibliometric and survey data of nanotechnology researchers in Canada, this paper analyzes the reward system of science in terms of gender and gender-related institutional cultures. This study reveals that the scientific culture of nanotechnology was perceived as more masculine by women than by men. The findings show that gender productivity gaps remain a challenge in the field and that these gaps are reinforced by the fact that the most productive researchers are less likely to collaborate with women. The results also show the amount of extra effort that women must devote to their research to retain their top status in academia, and the extent that their recognition when in top positions is fragile compared to men. This study confirms the cumulative advantage of creating a gender-inclusive culture that enables women to improve their scientific productivity and impact: such cultures tend to privilege first-author publications over patenting and thus prioritize a type of output where women have had more success. Finally, this paper concludes with policy recommendations for improving the number of women in research and the institutions where they work.

The Holman Research Pathway in Radiation Oncology: 2010 to 2019

PurposeThere has not been an assessment of the Holman Research Pathway (HRP) in radiation oncology (RO) in nearly 10 years. In this study, we sought to review the demographic characteristics, research productivity during and after residency, job placements, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding of RO residents who completed the HRP in the modern era. Methods and MaterialsWe created a comprehensive database of RO residents who completed the HRP between 2010 and 2019. Using a variety of data sources, we obtained demographic information, first-author manuscripts published in residency, and first- and last-author manuscripts published in the first 30 months after residency for each resident. In addition, we identified the first and current job and NIH grant funding for each resident. ResultsNinety-seven RO residents who graduated from 50 medical schools and 25 residency programs were included. The majority were male (82.5%), had a PhD (92.8%), and identified as white (64.9%). Collectively, these residents published 212 first-author, PubMed-searchable manuscripts during residency (mean: 2.2) and 142 first- or last-author, PubMed-searchable manuscripts in the first 30 months after completion of residency (mean: 1.5). The number of first-author publications authored by HRP graduates during residency was highly correlated (r = 0.62; P < .01) with the number of first- and last-author publications they authored during the first 30 months after completing residency. Ninety-six of the 97 residents (99.0%) were employed in full-time clinical positions after completing residency. Seventy-six HRP residents (78.4%) obtained an academic position as their first job after residency, only 4 of whom have since left academia, and 20 (20.6%) obtained a nonacademic position. Of the 75 HRP graduates currently employed in an academic position, 39 (52.0%) have their own laboratories. Twenty-three of the 96 HRP residents (24.0%) who secured employment in full-time clinical positions after residency switched jobs over the study period. Lastly, 33 of the 97 HRP residents (34.0%) have thus far received 47 extramural NIH research grants, 15 of which were R-01 grants. ConclusionsOver the past decade, the HRP has proven successful in training a new cohort of physician investigators in RO. Although productive, HRP residents have had relatively homogenous sex, educational, and racial backgrounds. Ensuring sufficient representation of residents from a variety of backgrounds in the HRP in the future will be crucial.

The 2020 Evidence-Based Promotion Ladder of Academic Plastic Surgery.

BackgroundMetrics were evaluated between academic plastic surgeons from different tiered training programs to determine promotion predictors within tiers and between tiers for those seeking promotion from assistant professor, associate professor, to full professors.MethodologyWe performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study by collecting 61 variables from full-time plastic surgery faculty affiliated with United States residency training programs during the 2020-2021 academic year. Surgeons were stratified into nine cohorts for comparison by professorship (assistant, associate, professor) and Doximity-ranked institution program tiers (Tier 1 = T1, Tier 2 = T2, Tier 3 = T3). Univariate followed by multivariate regressions with reciprocal transformation were performed to determine predictors more likely associated with promotion or lateral movement.ResultsA total of 98 programs listed 851 surgeons. T1/T2/T3 surgeon promotion predictors included more years in practice (p = 0.002; p < 0.001; p < 0.001) and greater number of last-author publications (p < 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.007). T1/T3 surgeon promotion predictors included higher h-indexes (p = 0.001; p = 0.002). T1 surgeon promotion predictors included being on journal editorial board (p = 0.040). T2 surgeon promotion predictors from assistant to associate included non-white race (p = 0.010). T3 surgeon promotion predictors included residency director (p = 0.009) and greater number of citations (p = 0.026). Promotion predictors from assistant, associate, and professors for T3/T2/T1 programs included greater number of last-author publications (p = 0.007; p = 0.002; p < 0.001). Movement from assistant and associate between T3/T2/T1 programs included plastic surgery department (p = 0.002; p < 0.001). Movement from assistant between programs included attending Top 10 US News medical schools (p = 0.012), attending more favorable Doximity-ranked research programs (p < 0.001), greater number of first-author publications (p = 0.017), and greater number of citations (p = 0.023). Movement from associate between programs included attending more favorable Doximity-ranked reputation programs (p = 0.017) and higher h-indexes (p = 0.017). Movement from professor between programs included receiving any American Association of Plastic Surgeons (AAPS) award (p = 0.039) and greater number of AAPS awards (p = 0.012).ConclusionsPromotion predictors provided evidence to synthesize the Doximity-tiered Promotion Ladder of Academic Plastic Surgery.

Do Medical Students Who Participate in a Research Gap Year Produce More Research During Residency?

Background:The research gap year has become increasingly popular among medical students. It is also a well-known factor in consideration for orthopaedic surgery residency programs. Although medical students who participated in a research gap year typically enter residency with more research experience than their counterparts, it is unknown whether this translates to increased research productivity during residency compared with their peers. The purpose of this study was to investigate (1) whether residents who participated in a research gap year during medical school publish more peer-reviewed publications than their peers during residency, (2) whether residents who participated in a research gap year during medical school publish more first-author publications than their peers during residency, and (3) which applicant characteristics are associated with a greater number of peer-reviewed publications produced during residency.Methods:The number of peer-reviewed journal publications before and during residency was determined by querying PubMed for 81 orthopaedic surgery residents at two academic institutions. Electronic residency application service applications and curriculum vitae were reviewed to evaluate the number of conference podiums and conference posters presented before residency and during residency. The research productivity of residents who participated in a research gap year during medical school was compared with that of residents who had not participated in a research gap year. Multivariate regression was done to determine predictors of publishing peer-reviewed journal publications during residency.Results:Residents who participated in a research gap year during medical school produced more peer-reviewed journal publications during residency than those who did not (22.0 ± 20 versus 16.5 ± 20, P = 0.025). However, residents who participated in a research gap year did not produce more first-author publications compared with their peers (7.6 ± 10.0 versus 7.9 ± 7.0, P = 0.12). Residents who produced more publications before residency produced more publications while in residency (R = 0.363, P < 0.001). The United States Medical Licensing Examination step 1 score, medical school ranking, and sex were not associated with any difference in the number of journal publications produced during residency.Conclusion:A dedicated research year during medical school is associated with an increase in the number of peer-reviewed publications produced during residency. However, students who completed a research year did not publish more first-author publications than their peers. The number of publications before residency was a strong predictor of research output as a resident.

Accentuating Research Scholarship Through Innovative Student Opportunities: A Mentored Approach

The _Journal for Advancing Sport Psychology in Research (JASPR)_ accentuates the development of research scholarship through highly immersive, mentored opportunities for students to first author rigorous student-led research and serve as gatekeepers (i.e., as peer-reviewers and editorial board members) of scientific knowledge through an innovative student-centered publishing platform. First-author publications are considered one of the foremost pinnacles of scientific achievement for research scholars; and, serving as peer reviewers and Editorial Board members of scientific journals are, respectively, considered two of the most valued professional service endeavors in the academic realm. _JASPR_’s student-centered operations are intended to enrich students’ knowledge of scientific publishing processes, develop and strengthen their scholarship skills, and bolster their abilities and motivation for navigating the complex academic publishing landscape. As the inaugural editors, in this paper, we: (a) call attention to opportunities in the research publishing landscape to involve students through mentored experiences, (b) broadly describe the role of mentorship in student scholarship, (c) introduce _ASPiRE_ which describes the journal’s mentoring activities and guides the immediate, short-term, and long-term student scholarship impacts in a logic model, and (d) provide an overview of opportunities for, and the benefits of, student involvement in the journal. Finally, we conclude with a call for student and faculty engagement in the journal.

W-Index: A Weighted Index for Evaluating Research Impact

Academic evaluations such as tenure/promotion applications and society fellowship nominations rely heavily on bibliometric measures of each candidate’s research impact, including their research citations. This article first reviews existing evaluation criteria such as the h-index and q-most-citations, and then proposes a weighted w-index which minimizes shortcomings in existing single-number measures. The w-index consists of three factors—3 most cited first-author publications, 3 most cited publications as the corresponding/last author, and 3 additional most cited publications as a co-author, but does not allow double counting of these publications.