H-index Scores Research Articles

Characteristics of General Surgery Social Media Influencers on Twitter.

The influence of social media and Twitter in general surgery research, mentorship, networking, and education is growing. Limited data exist regarding individuals who control the dialogue. Our goal was to characterize influencers leading the discussion in general surgery. Right Relevance Insight API was searched for "general surgery," and individual influencers were ranked by a comprehensive assessment of connections (followers/following) and engagement (likes, retweets, and comments). Profession, specialty, gender, and location were collected utilizing Twitter, Doximity, LinkedIn, ResearchGate, and institutional websites. American Board of Surgery and Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada were queried for board certification and academic h-index scores were acquired from Scopus. Eighty-eight individual influencers in general surgery were identified, with 73 holding positions in general surgery. Attending level general surgeons comprised 50%, of which 91% are board certified, and 94% completed a fellowship (surgical oncology, laparoscopic surgery, critical care/trauma, and colorectal surgery). Residents comprised 31%; 11% were nonsurgeons and 3% were not physicians. The majority of residents and fellow influencers were female (72%). Many general surgery influencers were international (51%), particularly Canadian (28% overall). The academic h-indices for these influencers (n = 73) ranged from 0 to 73 (mean 14.5 ± 8.2; median 9.5). Our data describe the positions, backgrounds, and research contributions of the top Twitter influencers in general surgery. Those engaged in social media should consider the background, expertise, and motivation of these influencers as the utilization and impact of this platform grows.

Predicting the 2016 US News & World Report rankings using a reputation and prestige model

IntroductionThe objective was to determine institutional, faculty, and student attributes predictive of the 2016 US News & World Report (USNWR) pharmacy rankings and to explore if student attributes modify program rankings. MethodsInstitutional attributes and student and faculty resources and outcomes were obtained from various sources. Regression analyses predicted rankings. ResultsUSNWR rankings were higher for older programs, those located at an academic health center or classified as a research-intensive institution, and members of a Power Five athletic conference. Number of fulltime equivalent faculty, Pharmacy College Admissions Test composite percentile, pharmacy practice h-index score, funding rank, and first time North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) pass rate predicted higher rankings. Nearly 45% of programs in the empiric models left or entered the top 25 rankings compared with the existing USNWR method (range 31 place increase to 22 place decrease). Among USNWR top 25 ranked programs, 16 remained in the top 25 in all four empiric models and three were not included in any of the models. Six USNWF unranked programs moved into the top 25 by one or more of the empiric models. ConclusionsFaculty and student attributes significantly impact program rankings, while impact of institutional attributes is negligible if independent of student and faculty attributes. Faculty numbers and productivity influence USNWR rankings more than student academic preparation and success on NAPLEX. These findings will inform efforts to improve the validity of the USNWR rankings and identify programs that are both prestigious and of high quality.

The use of H-index to assess research priorities in poultry diseases

Identifying which diseases represent a priority is crucial to optimize resources for diagnostics, control, and prevention. Here, the impact of 111 poultry pathogens belonging to Viruses (n = 31), Bacteria (n = 33), and Other (n = 47) was assessed using the H-index. The overall mean H-indexes suggested that poultry Viruses have statistically greater impact than Bacteria, which in turn are statistically more relevant than Others. Among the 20 highest H-indexes, 45% were zoonotic, and almost a third was Office International des Epizooties-listed. Avian influenza virus (H-index 127), Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium (H-index 72), and Eimeria spp (H-index 70) ranked the highest in Virus, Bacteria, and Other, respectively. Pathogens that produce overt clinical diseases and economic damage, cause immunosuppression, and/or are zoonotic had the highest H-index scores. The evolution of citations of particular pathogens reflected severe poultry outbreaks and/or zoonotic outbreaks in relatively wide geographic areas. Also, the evolution of citations based on taxonomic groups mirrored major changes in poultry production practices and management throughout history. Thus, Others were the most cited pathogens until the 1970s and, following 3 decades of unpopularity because of widespread use of intensive production practices, regained importance in the 2000s thanks to welfare regulation changes. Citations for Bacteria increased especially from the 1990s onward, probably because of the ban of growth promoters in western countries and the need to find new control methods for bacterial and protozoal infections. In general, countries with the greatest poultry production and research budgets had higher research production, that is the United States of America (USA) and China. Interestingly, the United Kingdom was among the top research producers despite falling behind other countries in poultry production and research budget. Moreover, the USA exhibited the strongest poultry research production based on number and diversity of publications (Dcos-index). In conclusion, the H-index could be a valid, simple tool to prioritize funding or interest in poultry diseases, especially when used as a preliminary selection approach in combination with other metrics.

Trends in Female Authorship: A Bibliometric Analysis of The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Women continue to comprise a small minority of cardiothoracic surgeons. Representation of women in areas of academic achievement has not been well characterized. This study aims to evaluate female representation among authorship positions in high-impact articles published in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. Altmetric scores were used to identify the top 50 articles published in 2013, 2015, and 2017 in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. Article characteristics as well as author demographics were collected. Bibliometric analysis was performed to identify longitudinal changes with regard to female representation as first and last authors. Female authors remain underrepresented in authorship, despite a temporal trend toward improvement in female representation over the years for first author position (16% in 2013, 22% in 2015, 20% in 2017) and last author position (8% in 2013, 16% in 2015, 20% in 2017). Articles authored by women were equally likely to achieve high impact as compared with men, as evaluated by Altmetric score (women 30.1 ± 38.6 vs men 39.1 ± 73.5, P= .53), citations (women 14.3 ± 19.1 vs men 17.6 ± 20.8, P= .45), and to be mentioned by news outlets, blogs, patents, Facebook, Wikipedia, Mendeley, Google, LinkedIn, and Reddit. Female first and last authors achieved comparable numbers of publications and H-index scores compared with male authors. Significant sex-based differences in authorship representation persist, but with favorable improvement in female representation over time. Importantly, citations and high-impact status were independent of author sex. Characterization of the representation of women in academic achievement helps us strive for gender equity in our specialty.

Elucidation of a resource reputation model to explain US News & World Report ranking using path analysis

IntroductionThe US News & World Report (USNWR) ranking is based on a reputation and prestige survey mailed to academic peers. This study's goal was to determine direct and indirect institutional, faculty, and student attributes predictive of the 2016 USNWR pharmacy rankings. MethodsThe Resource and Reputation Model (RRM) explains the development of perceptions of reputation and prestige. Institutional characteristics as well as student and faculty resources and outcomes were obtained from various sources. Path analysis determined the total, direct, and indirect effects. ResultsUSNWR rankings were higher if programs were older, affiliated with an academic health center, classified as a research-intensive institution, and members of a Power 5 football conference. Program rank was predicted by the number of full-time faculty equivalents and pharmacy practice h-index score and funding. Pharmacy College Admissions Test comprehensive percentile and first-time North American Pharmacy Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) pass rate were also predictive of higher rank. All but affiliation with an academic health center or research-intensive institution directly predicted rank, but they had indirect impact through programmatic quality attributes. ConclusionsThe RRM helps to explain pharmacy programs' USNWR rankings. Elucidation of its components provide insight into explaining the rankings and improving the methodology. Academic pharmacy could work with USNWR to develop criteria-based objective methodology to validate and improve rankings. Faculty, faculty productivity, and student academic preparation and success on NAPLEX influence USNWR rankings more than immutable factors such as program age and affiliations.

Putting personality in context: determinants of research productivity and impact in political science

Research on the determinants of scholarly productivity is flourishing, driven both by long-standing curiosity about its wide variation, and by recent concern over race and gender inequalities. Beyond standard structural and demographic determinants of research output, some studies point to the role of individual psychology. We contribute to scholarship on personality and productivity by showing not only that personality matters, but when and for whom. Using an original, representative study of faculty from one discipline, political science, we propose and test several hypotheses about the “Big Five” personality determinants of productivity, as gauged through counts of publications, H-index scores, and citations. Controlling for a large number of familiar determinants (e.g., race, gender, rank, and institutional incentives), we find that conscientiousness predicts productivity, but that its effects are conditioned by openness to experience. More precisely, we discover that these two personality traits have compensatory effects, such that openness to experience and conscientiousness each matter most in the absence of the other. In addition, personality has heterogeneous impacts on productivity across different contexts; conscientiousness more strongly affects scholarly output in research-oriented institutions, while collaboration reduces the penalty associated with lack of conscientiousness.

Host Factors Independently Associated With Prognosis in Patients With Oral Cavity Cancer

The association and interaction of host characteristics with prognosis in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) are poorly understood. There is increasing evidence that host characteristics are associated with treatment outcomes of many cancers. To examine the host factors associated with prognosis in patients with OSCC and their interactions to create a numerical index that quantifies the prognostic capacity of these host characteristics. This retrospective cohort study included patients with OSCC treated surgically at a tertiary care center from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2015. From a departmental OSCC database of 1377 previously untreated patients, 68 patients with missing data on any host variable of interest within a month before the start of treatment were excluded, leaving 1309 patients. Data analysis was performed from October 21, 2019, to December 10, 2019. Primary surgery for OSCC. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end point, and disease-specific survival (DSS) was the secondary end point. Optimal cutoffs for each variable were identified using recursive-partitioning analysis with the classification and regression tree method using OS as the dependent variable. Body mass index (BMI) and pretreatment peripheral blood leukocyte count, platelet count, hemoglobin level, and albumin level were analyzed. A host index (H-index) was developed using independent factors associated with OS. A total of 1309 patients (731 [55.8%] male; mean [SD] age, 62 [14.3] years) participated in the study. When including all the host-related factors in a multivariable analysis, all except BMI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.80-1.63) were independently associated with outcomes. For example, compared with a hemoglobin level of 14.1 g/dL or greater, the HR for a level of 12.9 to 14.0 g/dL was 1.42 (95% CI, 1.13-1.77) and for a level of 12.8 g/dL or less was 1.51 (95% CI, 1.18-1.94), and compared with an albumin level of 4.3 g/dL or greater, the HR for a level of 3.7 to 4.2 g/dL was 1.18 (95% CI, 0.95-1.45) and for a level of 3.6 g/dL or less was 3.64 (95% CI, 2.37-5.58). An H-index of 1.4 or less was associated with a 74% 5-year OS, an H-index of 1.5 to 3.5 with a 65% 5-year OS, and an H-index of 3.6 or higher with a 38% 5-year OS; for DSS, the 5-year survival was 84%, 80%, and 64%, respectively. Compared with patients with an H-index score of 1.4 or less, patients with H-index scores of 1.5 to 3.5 (hazard ratio, 1.474; 95% CI, 1.208-1.798) and 3.6 or higher (hazard ratio, 3.221; 95% CI, 2.557-4.058) had a higher risk of death. The findings suggest that pretreatment values of neutrophils, monocytes, lymphocytes, hemoglobin, and albumin are independently associated with prognosis in patients with OSCC. The interactions between these host factors were incorporated into a novel H-index that quantified the prognostic capacity of host characteristics associated with OSCC.

Biotin interference in routine laboratory tests: A bibliometric analysis

Biotin interference in routine laboratory tests: A bibliometric analysis

What Maximizes Research Excellence? Productivity and Impact in Political Science

What contributes towards research excellence in political science? To consider this issue, Part I describes the core concepts of academic productivity and impact and their operationalization, using the h-index. The study theorizes that variations in this measure may plausibly be influenced by personal characteristics (like gender, career longevity, and formal qualifications), working conditions (academic rank, type of department, and job security), as well as subjective role perceptions (exemplified by the perceived importance of scholarly research or teaching). Part II sets out the new evidence used for exploring these issues, drawing upon the ECPR-IPSA World of Political Science survey. This study gathered information from 2,446 political scientists in 102 countries around the globe. Part III presents the distribution and analysis of the results, as well as several robustness tests. Part IV summarizes the key findings and considers their broader implications. In general, several personal characteristics and structural working conditions prove significant predictors of h-index scores, whereas motivational goals and role perceptions add little, if anything, to the models. The gender gap also becomes insignificant once controls are introduced for career longevity and formal qualifications.

Academic Gender Disparity in Orthopedic Surgery in Canadian Universities.

IntroductionAcademic medicine is notorious for being "male-dominated." We hypothesized that there were significant and quantifiable levels of gender disparity in academic orthopedic surgery, and this article attempts to quantify the extent of the existing disparity. Also, we examined the research productivity of academic faculty in orthopedic surgery and its correlation with academic ranks and leadership positions.MethodsOur study design was cross-sectional in nature. We searched the Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) to compile a list of medical schools that offer orthopedic surgery training for residency. A total of 713 academic orthopedic surgeons met our inclusion criteria. Of the 713 orthopedic surgeons, 518 had an H-index score available on Elsevier’s Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands). The gender, academic rank, leadership position, and H-index were compared. Data analysis was done with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS; IBM, Armonk, NY). The binomial negative regression was used to compare the average H-index between men and women at each rank.ResultsOur study results reveal that academic orthopedic surgery in Canada is male-dominated, with men holding 87% of the academic positions. Female academic orthopedic surgeons held lower academic ranks, such as assistant professor or lecturer. Women orthopedic surgeons had lower H-index scores compared to their counterparts in ranks above the assistant professor. Our findings imply that research productivity and the ratio of average H-index scores comparing men to women (HM/HF) grow larger with each academic rank. At a 90% confidence level, women were less likely to hold leadership positions than men at an odds ratio (OR) of 0.52 [90% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-0.925, p: 0.03]. There were no significant differences in H-index between men and women for departmental leadership positions.ConclusionWomen were underrepresented in number, rank, and academic productivity (H-index). We offer possible factors that may have contributed to this finding as well as potential solutions.

Gender Gap in Industry Relationships and Scholarly Impact Among Academic Urologists in the United States

ObjectivesTo examine the distribution of industry payments to male and female academic urologists and the relationship between industry funding, academic rank, and scholarly impact. Material and MethodsAcademic urologists from 131 programs with publicly available websites were compiled. Gender, rank, fellowship training, and scholarly impact metrics were recorded. Data from the 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database were paired with faculty names. Comparisons were made using Fisher's Exact, Wilcoxon Rank Sum, and Spearman's Rank-Order tests. Multivariable logistic regression modeling identified predictors of receiving payments in the top quintile. ResultsAmong 1,657 academic urologists, males comprised 84%. While there were no gender differences in the number of urologists listed in the Open Payments Database, males received more total funding (P < .001) and higher median general payments per capita (P < .03). Males also received higher proportions of research funding (P = .002), speaker fees (P = .03), education fees (P = .03) and higher median consulting fees (P = .003). Overall, males had higher scholarly impact (P < .001), which correlated with total industry payments (rho = 0.27, P < .001). Predictors of accepting the top quintile payments include male gender, associate professorship and H-index score ≥10. ConclusionMost academic urologists accepted at least one industry payment in 2016, but males received more funding than females. There is a positive correlation between total industry payments, H-index, and total publications. More research is needed to understand why gender and scholarly productivity are associated with higher payouts. This is another important area that may influence career advancement and compensation for female urologists.

Academic benchmarks for leaders in Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery: a Canadian perspective

BackgroundThe present study summarizes the demographics, subspecialty training, and academic productivity of contemporary leaders in Canadian Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery (OHNS) training programs across Canada.MethodsDemographic data regarding chairpersons (CPs) and program directors (PDs) were obtained from publicly-available faculty listings and online sources, and included employment institution, residency training, fellowship training status, gender, and years of post-graduate experience. Research productivity was measured using the h-index and number of publications, obtained from Scopus. Characteristics of CPs and PDs were compared using statistical analysis.ResultsCross-sectional data was obtained from a total of 27 CPs and PDs from 13 accredited OHNS training programs across Canada active on July 1, 2019. All academic leaders completed at least 1 year of fellowship training. Head and neck oncology represented 77% of CPs and 59% of academic leaders overall, while pediatric otolaryngology represented 43% of PDs. Females represented 11% of academic leaders. There was a significant association between location of residency training and employment, with 56% (15/27) of physicians working where they had trained (p = 0.001, Fisher’s exact test; φ = 2.63, p = 0.001). On average, individuals with a graduate (Master’s) degree had a significantly higher H-index (17.7 vs 7.4, p = 0.001) and greater number of publications (106 vs. 52, p = 0.02). Compared to PDs, CPs had a significantly higher average h-index score (14.5 vs. 8.14, p = 0.04) and accrued more years of post-graduate experience (29.7 vs. 21.3 years, p = 0.008). There were no differences in the proportions of CPs and PDs with graduate degrees. There appeared to be a decline in research productivity beginning 3 years after academic appointment.ConclusionsThis cross-sectional overview of academic leaders in Canadian OHNS programs demonstrates the following key findings: 1) all leaders completed fellowship training; 2) head and neck surgical oncology was the most common fellowship training subspecialty; 3) leaders were likely to be employed at the institution where they trained; 4) a Master’s degree may be associated with increased research productivity; 5) there is a potential risk of decreased productivity after appointment to a leadership position; and 6) women are underrepresented in academic leadership roles.

Assessing the Scientific Impact of Individual Scholars With Multi-Scale H-Index

Quantitative evaluation on the individual’s scientific impact is an important research topic in the academic evaluation fields. Following the pioneering milestone of h-index, many variants have been proposed and but still suffer some limitations. In this paper, we propose a novel multi-scale h-index (MH-index, or Ma-Huang index) to comprehensively measure the scientific impact of scholars based on the publication record. We investigate the index from the mathematical perspective of correlation function between citation count and paper number. We reveal that different definitions of the correlation function lead to different index schemes. By defining the correlation functions with gradually varied slope, we can obtain a series of index elements, each of which captures the citation record in different granularities. Our approach can be essentially interpreted as a generalized h-index in multiple scales, which is obtained by first generating a multi-scale representation of a scholar’s paper citation record and then calculating the h-index score for each scale. Our approach can be extended to consider all publication citations and subtly emphasizes those highly cited publications. To validate the proposed indicators, an experimental study is conducted on 82 scholars in the scientometrics field and comparison is made with several existing indices. Our proposed MH-index is demonstrated to be more balanced and fine-grained for evaluating and comparing the scientific impact of individual scientists.

Research productivity across different ophthalmic subspecialties in the United States

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the h-index, and subsequently the research productivity, among different ophthalmic subspecialties in the United States.MethodsA cohort of over 15,000 academic ophthalmologists residing in the United States (US) was identified out of the physician list of the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Of them, 1000 ophthalmologists with at least one publication were randomly retrieved, 100 in each of the following 10 subspecialties: cataract, cornea/external disease, glaucoma, medical retina, neuro-ophthalmology, pediatric ophthalmology, plastic/reconstructive ophthalmology, refractive surgery, retina/vitreous surgery and uveitis. Data collected included: number of published papers, h-index score, annual increase in h-index and the mean number of authors on each paper.ResultsThe mean h-index amongst all subspecialties was 9.87 ± 13.90, and the mean average annual increase in h-index was 0.22 ± 0.21. The mean number of papers published was 37.20 ± 80.08 and the mean number of authors on each paper was 3.39 ± 0.84. Uveitis was the most prolific subspecialty in mean number of papers (74.78 ± 131.37), in mean h-index (16.69 ± 20.00) and in mean annual increase in h-index (0.35 ± 0.28). The least fertile subspecialty with regards to research was cataract with 11.06 ± 27.65 mean number of papers, a mean h-index of 3.89 ± 5.84, and a mean annual increase in h-index of 0.11 ± 0.11.ConclusionsThis study describes the research productivity in each ophthalmic subspecialty in the US, thus providing information on the research performance of each field and on the expected academic accomplishments within it.

Scientific Quality Index: a composite size-independent metric compared with h-index for 480 medical researchers

The goal of this study was to measure the scientific output of 480 authors—leaders in 12 selected branches of medicine, using the Hirsch index (the h-index) and a newly proposed Scientific Quality Index (SQI). Data were collected from the Scopus database (2008–2017) and scientific output assessments, by the h-index were compared with those by SQI. SQI is calculated by the addition of the percentage of papers cited ≥ 10 times and the mean citation score (excluding self-citations and the citations of all co-authors for both). The following mean values of basic bibliometric parameters were obtained in the whole study group: the citation index: 7250 ± 7817, the total number of papers: 187 ± 104, the total number of cited papers: 175 ± 101, the number of papers cited at least 10 times: 110 ± 75, the percent of papers cited at least 10 times: 51 ± 16, the mean number of citations per paper: 28 ± 21. The mean value of the h-index was 33.2 ± 16.1 and the mean SQI was 78.5 ± 33.4. When ranked, according to the SQI, 279 (58.1%) authors decreased, while 199 (41.5%) improved their ranking position in comparison to the h-index scores. When correlated with the basic bibliometric parameters, SQI was less dependent on both the number of publications and the number of citations in comparison with the h-index. The SQI was strongly influenced by the mean citation score, followed by the percent of papers cited ≥ 10 times. The h-index correlated with the SQI, r = 0.73, p < 0.0001. Although strongly correlating, the h-index and the SQI reflect partially different aspects of individual scientific output. The SQI expresses mainly the qualitative features of scientific output, whereas the h-index is more influenced by its quantitative measures (the number of papers and the number of citations). Therefore, the SQI may be approached as an interesting alternative way for assessment of the scientific output of an individual researcher.

Relationship between Citation-Based Scholarly Activity of United States Radiation Oncology Residents and Subsequent Choice of Academic versus Private Practice Career

Citation-based scholarly activity of physicians has become increasingly evaluated via the Hirsch index (h-index), which assesses the number of manuscripts (h) that have been cited at least h times. However, such evaluation involving Radiation Oncology residents is lacking in the peer-reviewed literature. The objective of this study was to assess h-index data and its association with resident choice of academic versus private practice career. A combination of internet searches, telephone interviews, and the 2015 Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO) directory was used to compile a list of 2016 radiation oncology resident graduates (163 residents from 76 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-certified programs) and their post-residency career choice (academic versus private practice) as previously described (McClelland et al., Practical Radiation Oncology 2017). The Scopus bibliometric citation database was then searched to collect h-index data for each resident. Demographics included in analyses were gender and PhD degree status. The mean h-index score for all resident graduates was 4.15. Residents with a PhD had significantly higher h-index scores (6.75 versus 3.42; p<0.01), while there was no statistically significant difference in h-index scores between male and female residents (4.38 versus 3.36; p=0.14). With regard to career choice, residents choosing academic careers had higher h-index scores than those choosing private practice (5.41 versus 2.96; p<0.01). There was no significant difference in mean h-index scores between male and female residents regardless of private practice (3.15 versus 2.19; p=0.25) or academic (5.80 versus 4.30; p=0.13) career choice. Twenty-one of the 23 residents (91.3%) with an h-index of zero went into private practice, while 13 of the 18 residents (72.2%) with an h-index of at least 10 went into academics. Of the 17 residents with an h-index of one, 12 (70.6%) went into private practice. The average radiation oncology resident graduate has published a minimum of four manuscripts cited at least four times. Graduates with a PhD are significantly more likely to have higher h-index scores, as are residents who choose academic over private practice careers. Eighty-three percent of residents with an h-index score less than two chose private practice careers. There is no significant difference in h-index score between male and female residents regardless of career choice. These results offer up-to-date benchmarks for evaluating radiation oncology resident productivity and have potential utility in predicting career choices post-residency.

Comparison of Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Metrics, and SCImago Journal Rank Indicator and h-index for Neurosurgical and Spinal Surgical Journals

In academic specialties such as neurosurgery, bibliometrics are often used to guide readers, academic institutes, and researchers to make objective assessment of journals. Recently, new indices have been developed to overcome the shortcomings of the widely used Impact Factor. The objective of our study was to investigate the correlations among 6 of the commonly used bibliometric indices (Impact Factor, SCImago Journal indicator, SCOPUS h-index, Google h-index, Eigenfactor, Article Influence Score) in neurosurgical and spinal surgical journals. A list of all neurosurgical and spinal surgical journals was compiled using the databases of SCOPUS, Clarivate Analytics (Thomson Reuters), and National Library of Medicine Catalog. Journals that are not surgically oriented, non-English journals, and nursing journals were excluded. Bivariate Spearman ranking correlation tests were performed. Fifty-four journals were included, of which 14 were spine themed. High positive correlations were obtained among the bibliometric indices of neurosurgical (nonspinal) journals (P < 0.05 in all pairs). Median values were 1.54, 0.66, 53, 25, 0.0035, and 0.46 for Impact Factor, SCImago Journal rank indicator, SCOPUS h-index, Google h-index, Eigenfactor, and Article Influence Score, respectively. However, the correlations for spinal surgical journals were more variable, likely because of the small sample size. Despite the different mathematical basis among the citation-based bibliometric indices studied, they have strong correlations in ranking neurosurgical journals. This study provides evidence that the newer indices may be used interchangeably with the Impact Factor in this context, and they may, theoretically, mitigate some the shortcomings of the Impact Factor.

Gender and Publishing in Nursing: a secondary analysis of h-index ranking tables.

To analyse published ranking tables on academics' h-index scores to establish whether male nursing academics are disproportionately represented in these tables compared with their representation across the whole profession. Previous studies have identified a disproportionate representation of UK male nursing academics in publishing in comparison to their US counterparts. Secondary statistical analysis, which involved comparative correlation of proportions. Four papers from the UK, Canada and Australia containing h-index ranking tables and published between 2010-2017, were re-analysed in June 2017 to identify authors' sex. Pearson's chi-squared test was applied to ascertain whether the number of men included in the tables was statistically proportionate to the number of men on the pertinent national professional register. There was a disproportionate number of men with high h-index scores in the UK and Canadian data sets, compared with the proportion of men on the pertinent national registers. The number of men in the Australian data set was proportionate with the number of men on the nursing register. There was a disproportionate number of male professors in UK universities. The influence of men over nursing publishing in the UK and Canada outweighs their representation across the whole profession. Similarly, in the UK, men's representation in the professoriate is disproportionately great. However, the Australian results suggest that gender inequality is not inevitable and that it is possible to create more egalitarian nursing cultures. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Comparing the research productivity of social work doctoral programs using the h-Index

The purpose of the study was to examine the productivity of faculty in social work doctoral programs. This study builds on previous investigations on the scholarship of social work faculty using the h-Index (i.e., citation analysis). This study examined the scholarly productivity of the full population (N = 1699) of tenure-track faculty in all 76 United States social work doctoral programs by analyzing the h-Index scores of each program. Information on funding sources, regional location, year of establishment, and faculty demographics was collected to better understand why faculty and programs differ in their h-Index. A hierarchical regression analysis was used in creating a predictive model. The final model explained 51% of the variance in h-Index scores (R2 = .51). Academic rank was the strongest predictor of school h-Index. Each school’s faculty size, gender proportion, region, college age, and auspice also contributed to the predictive power of the model. The proportion of senior faculty (Associate Professors and Full Professors) and college age were the strongest predictors based on standardized regression coefficients. The finding that academic rank contributed the most variance to the regression model provides empirical support to the long-argued importance of publication in career advancement. The overall results of the model confirm that institutional factors such as faculty size, region, and auspice do have unique effects on research productivity even after accounting for individual level differences in faculty across diverse social work programs.

The Relationship Between Preresidency Peer-Reviewed Publications and Subsequent Citation-Based Scholarly Activity of United States Radiation Oncology Residents

Preresidency peer-reviewed publications (PRP) have been associated with resident choice of academic versus private practice careers in both neurosurgery and radiation oncology. The relationship between PRP and subsequent citation-based scholarly activity of radiation oncology residents has not been previously examined. A list of 2016 radiation oncology resident graduates (163 residents from 76 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-certified programs) and their PRP were compiled. The Scopus bibliometric citation database was then searched to collect Hirsch index (h-index) data for each resident, as well as manuscripts limited to first-author only and first- or second-author only for each resident. Analyses were stratified based on the absence or presence of (at least 1) PRP for each resident. The mean h-index score for all resident graduates was 4.15. Residents with at least 1 PRP had significantly higher h-index scores (5.93 vs 2.12; P < .01) than those with no PRP. PRP was also associated with significantly higher first-author only (2.84 vs 1.17; P< .01) and second-author only (3.90 vs 1.47; P < .01) scores. Radiation oncology residents with at least 1 PRP are significantly more likely than those with no PRP to have higher h-index scores, as well as higher scores when stratified by first and/or second authorship. The average radiation oncology resident graduate with at least 1 PRP has published approximately 6 manuscripts cited at least 6 times, been first or second author on nearly 4 manuscripts cited at least 4 times, and been first author on nearly 3 manuscripts cited at least 3 times. More than 30% of graduates without PRP did not publish any cited manuscripts. These results allow for potential predictive evaluation of resident productivity during the radiation oncology residency applicant process and have potential utility in predicting career choices postresidency.