Higher H-indices Research Articles

Network Analysis of Women in Otolaryngology and Demographic Trends.

This study analyzes gender disparities between men and women otolaryngology faculty in the top 20 otolaryngology departments ranked by research output and discusses the implications of these disparities. This was a cross-sectional study of all articles published by faculty from January 2020 to December 2021 at the top 20 otolaryngology departments as ranked by Doximity's 2022 research output report. Integrated data from Web of Science, faculty directories, and NIH RePORT were used to collect data on faculty. Social network analysis was performed using ORA-LITE. Student's and Welch's t-tests and Pearson chi-squared tests were used to evaluate gender differences in academic metrics. The findings revealed significant gender disparities, with men holding higher academic positions (men = 3.16, women = 2.69, p < 0.0001), higher H-indices (22.4, 13.8, p < 0.0001), more NIH grants (0.15, 0.07, p = 0.0032), and greater total degree centrality (3.98E-4, 2.4E-4, p < 0.0001) and betweenness centrality (4.47E-3, 3.00E-3, p = 0.0021). Men also had more publications (9.8, 6.8, p < 0.0001) with more distinct co-authors, both within (4, 3.1, p = 0.0074) and across (38.1, 25.8, p < 0.0001) institutions. Disparities persisted after accounting for career length. Notably, total degree centrality differences between men and women were statistically significant from 1991 to 2017 (p < 0.0001), but not from 2018 to 2022 (p = 0.83). This study highlights gender inequities in otolaryngology, encouraging mentors to foster new collaborations with female peers. Importantly, it identifies a trend toward narrowing the gender gap within the specialty, particularly over the past 5 years, emphasizing the need to sustain these positive changes for enhanced gender equity. NA Laryngoscope, 2024.

Evaluating academic productivity and match outcomes in neurosurgery residents from medical schools without a neurosurgery residency program: a 2016-2022 bibliometric analysis.

Transition of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 to a pass/fail structure has focused attention on medical student research in residency application. Previous studies have explored how various factors affect the neurosurgery match success, but none have focused on applicants from schools without a neurosurgery residency program. The authors compiled a list of neurosurgery residents matched from 2016 to 2022 from schools lacking a neurosurgery program. They gathered demographic and bibliometric data, focusing on academic productivity before residency. The distinction between the top 40 and non-top 40 programs used the 5-year institutional h-index (ih[5]-index) of departments. Between 2016 and 2022, the gross number of students entering neurosurgery from schools without a home program rose from 15 to 26 in 2021, declining to 23 in 2022. The range of matched applicants per school was 0 to 10. The median number of publications per resident increased from 2 in 2016 to 5 in 2022 (p < 0.001). The lowest and highest numbers of publications by applicants were 0 and 40, respectively, with 22.5% reporting no publications. The lowest and highest h-indices by applicants were 0 and 11, respectively, with nearly one-third (31.2%) possessing an h-index of 0. Applicants from schools lacking a neurosurgery residency program who matched into top 40 programs had a publication range of 0-11, with a higher median of 3 compared with those who did not (median 2, range 0-8). While no significant differences were found in publication numbers (p = 0.084), a difference in h-index was observed (p = 0.024) between the two groups. Publications significantly correlated with the h-index, with each additional publication increasing the h-index by 0.19 (p < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.3348). Median publication counts have increased in this cohort, but they do not distinguish top 40 program matches. Conversely, the h-index, correlating with publication quantity and journal impact factor, does.

Evolution of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Physicians Clinical and Academic Profile by Gender.

To examine career trajectory and academic profile of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) physicians, with special focus on gender differences. Observational cross-sectional study of PCCM fellowship graduates using publicly available data. Publicly available databases including National Provider Identifier registry, American Board of Pediatrics, Doximity, official hospital websites, and Scopus. Two thousand one hundred twenty-nine PCCM fellowship graduates employed in clinical positions in U.S. practice locations. None. Physician demographic characteristics included gender and time since fellowship completion. Current career and academic characteristics included employment data, publication productivity (h-index), and academic rank. Data from 2129 career PCCM physicians was included, with recent graduates showing a notable increase in female representation. Workplace characteristics revealed that most PCCM physicians worked in university-affiliated hospitals, with higher percentages of female physicians working in university-affiliated hospitals compared with male physicians. The study also highlighted significant gender disparities in academic metrics, with male physicians having higher h-indices (3 vs. 2; p < 0.001) and more publications (6 vs. 4; p < 0.001) than their female counterparts across various career phases. Additionally, the analysis showed gender differences in academic rank, with a higher proportion of female faculty holding assistant and associate professor ranks (58.2% vs. 47.5%; p < 0.001), while a greater percentage of male faculty held the rank of professor (20.2% vs. 11.1%; p < 0.001). Multiple variable regression analysis identified both male gender and time since fellowship graduation as independently associated with a physician's h-index, while only time since fellowship graduation was linked to current academic rank. This is the first analysis of career and academic characteristics of practicing PCCM physicians, additionally studying the association of gender and career trajectory. Gender discrepancy was seen in employment hospital characteristics, h-indices, and academic rank. Additional studies are required to further explore the impact of gender on career trajectory.

"Top 20" residency-trained academic orthopaedic surgeons have higher academic productivity and funding in their careers.

"Top 20" status on Doximity, an online networking service for medical professionals, is an indicator of the reputation of a residency program. The study assesses how training at a Top 20 (T20) orthopaedic residency program impacts career productivity and funding. Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database was used in 2022 to identify active orthopaedic residency programs. Demographic and training data was collected for each orthopaedic surgeon using institutional websites and Doximity. The Residency Navigator feature on Doximity was used to rank residency programs by "reputation." Programs were categorized as either T20 or non-T20. The relative citation ratio (RCR) was calculated using the NIH iCite tool and Hirsch index (h-index) was calculated using Scopus. Industry funding was collected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Program (CMS) for all available years (2014-2020). A total of 2812 academic orthopaedic surgeons were included in the study. Among academic orthopaedic surgeons in the United States, T20 trained orthopedists had more publications and citations (p < 0.001), along with higher h-indices (p < 0.001), RCR (p < 0.001), and industry funding (p = 0.043). Additionally, T20 trained orthopedists were 1.375 times more likely to obtain professor status (95% confidence interval: 1.150-1.645, p < 0.001). Even after propensity-matched analysis, T20 trained orthopedists maintained these differences. Training at a T20 residency program is associated with promotion, productivity, and funding. These findings are especially of concern to medical students who must consider the importance of a residency program's reputation when deciding where to apply for residency.

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

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

The Relative Citation Ratio: An Impartial Assessment of Productivity in Academic Otolaryngologists.

Quantification of academic productivity relies on bibliometric measurements, such as the Hirsch index (h-index). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently developed the relative citation ratio (RCR), an article-level, citation-driven metric that compares researchers with others within their respective fields. Our study is the first to compare the usage of RCR in academic otolaryngology. Retrospective Database Review. Academic otolaryngology residency programs were identified using the 2022 Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Demographic and training data were collected for surgeons using institutional websites. RCR was calculated using the NIH iCite tool, and h-index was calculated using Scopus. Mean RCR (m-RCR) is the average score of the author's articles. Weighted RCR (w-RCR) is the sum of all article scores. These derivatives are a measure of impact and output, respectively. The career duration of a physician was categorized into the following cohorts: 0-10, 11-20, 21-30, and 31+ years. A total of 1949 academic otolaryngologists were identified. Men had higher h-indices and w-RCRs than women (both p less than 0.001). m-RCR was not different between genders (p = 0.083). There was a difference in h-index and w-RCR (both p less than 0.001) among the career duration cohorts, but there was no difference in m-RCR among the cohorts (p = 0.416). The faculty rank professor was the greatest for all metrics (p < 0.001). Critics of the h-index argue that it is reflective of the time a researcher has spent in the field, instead of impact. The RCR may reduce historic bias against women and younger otolaryngologists. NA Laryngoscope, 134:592-599, 2024.

Industry Payments and Academic Influence in Reconstructive Microsurgery

Abstract Background Financial relationships between industry and microsurgeons help facilitate innovation but have the potential to bias a surgeon's academic work. To better understand industry–academic relationships, this study investigated the association between industry payments made to microsurgeons and their academic influence. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of microsurgeons at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited plastic surgery residency programs during the 2020–2021 academic year was performed. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Open Payments Database was used to collect industry payments (research and nonresearch related) to each surgeon. Academic influence was measured by Hirsch index (h-index) and number of publications. Mann–Whitney's U and Kruskal–Wallis' tests were used for statistical analysis. Results Of the 199 microsurgeons identified, 156 (78.39%) received an industry nonresearch payment, but 0 (0.0%) received an industry research payment. Surgeons who received any amount of industry payments did not have a higher mean h-index or higher mean number of publications than surgeons with no industry payments. However, surgeons with total industry payments more than $10,000 (n = 15) had a higher number of publications than surgeons with no industry payments (135.47 vs. 36.02, p = 0.0074), $1 to $1,000 in payments (135.47 vs. 34.37, p = 0.0006), and $1,000 to $10,000 in payments (135.47 vs. 45.43, p = 0.0268). Surgeons with total industry payments more than $10,000 also had higher h-indices than surgeons with $1 to $1,000 in payments (24.4 vs. 10.34, p = 0.0039) and $1,000 to $10,000 in payments (24.4 vs. 11.34, p = 0.0413). Conclusion Industry funding is associated with higher h-index and higher number of publications for high earners (&gt; $10,000). Private companies may favor these surgeons for their academic expertise.

Composition and Gender Distribution of Editorial Boards for Top Neurosurgical Journals

Though women now comprise approximately 21.5% of all neurosurgery residents in the United States, women only represent 10% of practicing neurosurgeons nationally. Serving as a journal editor is 1 measure of academic success. We investigated characteristics of editorial boards for top neurosurgical journals to identify factors influencing membership on editorial boards. We sought to identify gender differences to explain the paucity of women on editorial boards. This is a cross-sectional study of editorial boards for the top 10 English-language neurosurgical journals. Data were obtained from journal websites, program faculty lists, or physician online profiles. Gender differences were compared using Student t test and χ2 analysis. Seven hundred twenty-two editorial board members were examined (female n= 65; male n= 650; unidentified n= 7). Overall, women had fewer years in practice (P= 0.002) and more often had additional advanced degrees (P= 0.009) while men had higher h-indices (P < 0.0001). Within the boards of Neurosurgery and Acta Neurochirurgica, men had been in practice longer (P= 0.014; P= 0.023) and had higher h-indices (P= 0.003; P= 0.025). Male editors for Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine and World Neurosurgery had higher h-indices (P= 0.007; P= 0.018). Women constitute ∼9% of editorial boards for top neurosurgical journals, a percentage comparable to the amount of practicing female academic neurosurgeons. This finding is encouraging as in that there appears to be no readily identifiable bias in the selection of editorial board members. The differences in years in practice and h-index suggest that gender distribution may equalize with time as more women enter practice and produce scientific literature. Efforts to recruit and retain women in neurosurgery should be pursued to rectify this discrepancy.

Bibliometric analyses and network mapping on the smart library in Web of Science from 2003 to 2021

PurposeThis research conducts bibliometric analyses and network mapping on smart libraries worldwide. It examines publication profiles, identifies the most cited publications and preferred sources and considers the cooperation of the authors, organizations and countries worldwide. The research also highlights keyword trends and clusters and finds new developments and emerging trends from the co-cited references network.Design/methodology/approachA total of 264 records with 1,200 citations were extracted from the Web of Science database from 2003 to 2021. The trends in the smart library were analyzed and visualized using BibExcel, VOSviewer, Biblioshiny and CiteSpace.FindingsThe People’s Republic of China had the most publications (119), the most citations (374), the highest H-index (12) and the highest total link strength (TLS = 25). Wuhan University had the highest H-index (6). Chiu, Dickson K. W. (H-index = 4, TLS = 22) and Lo, Patrick (H-index = 4, TLS = 21) from the University of Hong Kong had the highest H-indices and were the most cooperative authors. Library Hi Tech was the most preferred journal. “Mobile library” was the most frequently used keyword. “Mobile context” was the largest cluster on the research front.Research limitations/implicationsThis study helps librarians, scientists and funders understand smart library trends.Originality/valueThere are several studies and solid background research on smart libraries. However, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this study is the first to conduct bibliometric analyses and network mapping on smart libraries around the globe.

Characterization of Gender Differences in H-index Within Urological Subspecialties.

Previous work in urology has shown that men have higher h-indices than women. However, the degree to which h-indices vary by gender within urological subspecialties has not been well defined. Herein, we assess gender differences in h-index among different subspecialties. Demographics were recorded for academic urologists using residency program websites as of July 2021. Scopus was queried to identify h-indices. Gender differences in h-index were estimated from a linear mixed-effects regression model with fixed effects for gender, urological subspecialty, MD/PhD status, years since first publication, interactions of subspecialty with years since first publication, and interactions of subspecialty with gender and random effects for AUA section and institution nested within AUA section. The Holm method was used to adjust for multiplicity (7 hypothesis tests). Of 1,694 academic urologists from 137 institutions, 308 were women (18%). Median years since first publication was 20 for men (IQR 13, 29) and 13 for women (IQR 8, 17). Among all academic urologists, the median h-index was 8 points higher for men (15 [IQR 7, 27]) vs women (7 [IQR 5, 12]). There was no significant gender difference in h-index for any of the subspecialties after adjusting for urologist experience and after applying the Holm method for multiplicity correction. We were unable to demonstrate a gender difference in h-index after adjusting for urologist experience for any urological subspecialties. Future study is warranted as women become more senior members of the urological workforce.

Letter to the Editor Regarding “Case Series and Systematic Review of Electronic Scooter Crashes and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury”

Though women now comprise approximately 21.5% of all neurosurgery residents in the United States, women only represent 10% of practicing neurosurgeons nationally. Serving as a journal editor is 1 measure of academic success. We investigated characteristics of editorial boards for top neurosurgical journals to identify factors influencing membership on editorial boards. We sought to identify gender differences to explain the paucity of women on editorial boards.This is a cross-sectional study of editorial boards for the top 10 English-language neurosurgical journals. Data were obtained from journal websites, program faculty lists, or physician online profiles. Gender differences were compared using Student t test and χ2 analysis.Seven hundred twenty-two editorial board members were examined (female n = 65; male n = 650; unidentified n = 7). Overall, women had fewer years in practice (P = 0.002) and more often had additional advanced degrees (P = 0.009) while men had higher h-indices (P < 0.0001). Within the boards of Neurosurgery and Acta Neurochirurgica, men had been in practice longer (P = 0.014; P = 0.023) and had higher h-indices (P = 0.003; P = 0.025). Male editors for Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine and World Neurosurgery had higher h-indices (P = 0.007; P = 0.018).Women constitute ∼9% of editorial boards for top neurosurgical journals, a percentage comparable to the amount of practicing female academic neurosurgeons. This finding is encouraging as in that there appears to be no readily identifiable bias in the selection of editorial board members. The differences in years in practice and h-index suggest that gender distribution may equalize with time as more women enter practice and produce scientific literature. Efforts to recruit and retain women in neurosurgery should be pursued to rectify this discrepancy.

The Medical Student Race to Research: Who Presents More at National Plastic Surgery Conferences?

presentations increase research output and facilitate networking for medical students applying to plastic surgery. We aim to determine predictors of increased medical student presentation at national plastic surgery conferences, identifying disparities in access to research opportunities. Abstracts presented at the 2 most recent meetings of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Association of Plastic Surgeons, and Plastic Surgery Research Council were extracted from online archives. Presenters without MDs or other professional credentials were classified as medical students. Presenter gender, medical school ranking, plastic surgery division/department, National Institutes of Health funding, number of total and first-author publications, H-index, and research fellowship completion status were recorded. Students with 3 or more (>75th percentile) presentations were compared with those with less by χ2 tests. Univariate and multivariable regressions identified factors associated with 3 or more presentations. Of 1576 abstracts, 549 (34.8%) were presented by 314 students. The gender distribution was 46.5% male and 53.5% female. Most were from the Northeast (36.9%), 35% came from top 20 medical schools, and 85% attended schools with home plastic surgery programs. While 61.8% presented once, 14.6% presented 3 or more times. Those who previously presented, completed research fellowships or had more publications or higher H-indices were likely to present more ( P ≤ 0.007). On multivariable-adjusted analysis, completing research fellowships (odds ratio [OR], 2.34-2.52; P = 0.028-0.045), affiliation with institutions having higher National Institutes of Health funding (OR, 3.47-3.73; P = 0.004-0.006), or having more total number of publications (OR, 3.81; P = 0.018) or first-author publications (OR, 3.84; P = 0.008) was associated with 3 or more presentations. Presenter gender, geographic region, medical school ranking, home program status, and H-indices were not significant predictors on multivariable analysis. There are several potential inequities in access to research opportunities for medical students, disadvantaging those with less well-funded plastic surgery programs and existing research experience. Improving the equitability of these opportunities is crucial for limiting bias in trainee recruitment and diversifying representation in the field.

10. The Medical Student Race to Research: Who Presents More at National Plastic Surgery Conferences?

Background: Plastic surgery is among the most competitive specialties with applicant academic productivity rising. We aim to determine predictors of increased plastic surgery abstract presentation by medical students, identifying disparities in research opportunities. Methods: Abstracts presented at the two most recent meetings for ASPS (2019, 2020), AAPS (2019, 2021), and PSRC (2019, 2021) were identified online. Presenters without MD’s or other professional credentials were classified as medical students. Abstracts with internationally affiliated presenters were excluded. Genders were determined using Gendorize.io. Medical schools were determined through Google and categorized by US News Research rankings. Home plastic surgery division/department NIH fundings were calculated by summing all rewards for full-time faculty on NIH RePORTER. Research fellowship completion was suspected if affiliate institution and school differed and confirmed through Google. Number of total and first author publications and h-indices, calculated from Scopus and PubMed, were recorded. Students who ≥3 (>75th percentile) or less were compared by chi-squared tests. Univariate and multivariable regressions were used to identify factors associated with ≥ 3 presentations. Results: Of 1,576 abstracts, 549 (34.8%) were presented by 314 students. About half of students were female (53.5%) and most were from the Northeast (36.9%). Over 3 years, 61.8% of students presented once, while 14.6% presented ≥ 3 times. Those who previously presented, completed a research fellowship, published more, or had higher H-indices were likely to present more (p ≤ 0.007). On multivariable-adjusted analysis, completing research fellowships (OR=2.34, p=0.045), affiliation with institutions with more plastic surgery NIH funding (OR=3.73, p=0.004), and having more total (OR=3.81, p=0.018) or first author (OR=3.84, p=0.008) publications were associated with increased presentation. Gender, region, school ranking, having a home program, and h-indices, were not significant predictors. Conclusion: Medical students who previously presented at national plastic surgery meetings, completed research fellowships, have more publications, and attend schools with more plastic surgery NIH funding are more likely to present. With just under 15% of students presenting ≥3 times, determining factors that differentiate presentation chances for medical students is important for identifying ways to address and improve disparities students face in entering plastic surgery.

Publication Productivity Using H-Index to Evaluate Academic Success Among Fellowship-Trained Mohs Surgeons.

The h-index is a measure of research achievement using not only the number of publications of an individual, but also the impact of the publications. The objective of this study is to evaluate the h-indices of Mohs surgeons within a variety of practice settings. A list of all American College of Mohs Society (ACMS) members with corresponding fellowships years were collected using the ACMS membership directory. Publicly available demographic information was obtained including fellowship year, practice setting, PhD status, practice location (region), total number of publications, and h-index. Descriptive statistics were calculated to compare h-indices among the demographic data. A total of 1150 ACMS members were included. The Practice setting distribution was as follows: 10.6% academic, 85.7% private practice, and 3.7% combined. H-index differed significantly based on practice setting (p < .001), with higher h-indices in academic and combined settings compared with the private practice setting. Subanalysis among academic Mohs surgeons revealed higher mean h-indices among professors (23.9) > associate professors (10.6) > assistant professors (8.6) > clinical instructors (5) (p < .001). H-indices were highest among Mohs surgeons in the academic setting with increasing values correlating with higher academic rank and time since fellowship completion.

Do elite scientists play a key role in the genesis of transformative research of “sparking type”? An investigation in the science of science

The purpose of this study is to explore if elite scientists play a key role in the genesis of transformative research. As there exist different types of transformative research, this paper focuses on one type of work, i.e. under-cited influential work,referred to as “sparking” articles. A comparative study between the h-indices of authors citing Nobel Prize-winning papers of sparking type and those of authors citing ordinary ones is conducted, focusing on the first author and the corresponding author of each paper. The results show that the citers of the Top 1% or Top 10% Citations Sets in the sparking group have much higher h-indices than those in the ordinary group. These findings imply that elite scientists, operationalized as those with a high h-index in the corresponding fields, are more sensitive to sparking work and, as such play a pivotal role in the genesis of transformative research. This investigation provides new insight into the study of detecting transformative research, and hence, contributes to the science of science.

Publish or Perish: A Cross-Sectional, Bibliometric Analysis of Physician Assistant Faculty Publications.

Little is known about physician assistant (PA) educators' publishing practices and the collective impact of their published works. The goal of this study was to describe the scholarly output of the PA professoriate in a way that is useful to both promotion committees and individual educators who are planning careers. A cross-sectional study was performed to demonstrate publishing patterns. The name of each PA-credentialed educator in academic health centers was searched in Scopus. Citations of peer-reviewed articles published through 2019 were retrieved and de-duplicated. The number of publications, h-indices, journal names, and keywords were collected between May 2019 and January 2020. Differences among academic ranks were explored, and keywords were analyzed. Frequently used journals were determined and their impact factors retrieved. A total of 364 faculty met inclusion criteria. Between 1972 and 2019, 895 peer-reviewed articles were published; 603 were published in the last 10 years. Approximately half the study cohort (n = 172) published at least one peer-reviewed article that met inclusion criteria (range 1-89; median = 2). Overall, productivity remained steady over the last 10 years (range 0-59; median = 2). Faculty at the professor and associate level had a median h-index of 2.00 and assistants had a median h-index of 1.00. PhD-prepared faculty published more articles and had higher h-indices than faculty with other types of degrees. The results provide benchmarking data that can be used for promotion and professional development. More faculty must publish and increase the citation rate of their publications if we are to improve the reputation of the PA educator literature.

The Conundrum of Medical Writing

Writing is an art. Medical writing is an amalgamation of art with science. Not all medical writers have the inherent capability to pen down their work. For some it is a source of contentment, happiness, and authorization whereas it’s a hard nut to crack for others, requiring additional efforts to accomplish this uphill task.&#x0D; Future medical writers confront many challenges before they embark upon this worthwhile endeavour. Some may not realize its importance; others simply enter into the world of bewilderment as to how to start. Yet others are well versed with the subject but just cannot pen it down and the majority cannot squeeze their time in because of their hectic daily routines. In order to counter these challenges, one has to overcome the conundrum of medical writing.&#x0D; Why to Write?&#x0D; Medical writing is an essential feature of evidence-based medicine and is mandatory for progress in the medical profession. Apart from religious, international, national, institutional, and professional gains, the honor, regard, and respect a medical writer earns in the scientific world is priceless. High research scores, h-indices, portfolios, citations, and references quoted by other researchers and writers elevate you to unfathomable heights. Your work creates an opportunity for others to get benefit from the work done and the medical knowledge grows in a stepladder fashion. Ultimately the main aim i.e. Benefit humanity also fulfilling the divine requirement for a Muslim medical writer.&#x0D; This qualm of writers' hesitancy can have devastating effects on the professional career of a writer. Age limit constraints, fear of losing an opportunity to appear in examinations on time, poor prospects for gaining senior posts and promotions, etc. can be detrimental to the psychosocial well-being too. This initiates the unfortunate vicious circle causing further delay or even abandonment of work. This state of affairs could be demoralizing for a doctor who is otherwise humane, hardworking, conscientious, and has been courteous to patients. Even his research could be an extraordinary work but he is unable to put it down in black and white. The medical writers have to trounce over this perplexing situation by getting acquainted with the essence of writing.&#x0D; The significance of Medical writing cannot be undermined as it forms the basis of development, evolution, and progress in the medical field. It is the only preservable way of transferring knowledge to others. The importance of gaining knowledge and preserving it is very well depicted and stressed in Islam.&#x0D; The first Divine word “IQRA” and the second revelation related to “THE PEN” is ample evidence. Numerous Hadiths stress gaining knowledge and preserving it. I quote one Hadith “TAQYID Al ILM”, {define, preserve and record knowledge by ‘writing it down}’.1

Educational demographics of orthopaedic surgery department chairs.

Becoming chair of an academic clinical department is a tremendous achievement that takes many years of experience and clinical excellence. The purpose of this study was to determine the educational demographics of current orthopaedic surgery department chairs in the United States. A complete list of orthopaedic surgery residency programs was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) 2019-2020 list of residency programs. Department chairs were identified through an online search. Educational data, including where the department chair went to medical school, residency, fellowship, and type of fellowship completed were obtained. A total of 145 orthopaedic department chairs were identified. The most attended medical schools by department chairs were Baylor (6 of 145, 4.1%) and Northwestern (6 of 145, 4.1%). The University of Rochester was the most common orthopaedic residency attended (9 of 145, 6.2%) and Harvard was the most common orthopaedic clinical fellowship (20 of 133, 15.0%). On average, it took 17.9 years from completion of clinical training to being named department chair. This study provides insight into the academic credentials, length of clinical experience, and research productivity of current orthopaedic surgery department chairs. Certain training programs may be more likely to produce department chairs and, in general, an orthopaedic surgeon is more likely to become chair at an institution where he/she previously trained. Finally, research productivity is clearly an important factor in becoming chair, as most chairs have high h-indices and a consistent track record of research excellence.

107 Composition and Gender Distribution of Editorial Boards for Top Neurosurgical Journals

INTRODUCTION: Women are underrepresented in academic medicine, most notably in surgical subspecialties. Despite increasing numbers of female neurosurgery residents, female neurosurgeons are not obtaining competitive national positions at comparable rates. Serving as a journal editor is one measure of academic success. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of editorial boards for the top 10 English-language neurosurgical journals (Journal of Neurosurgery, Neurosurgery, JNS: Spine, World Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Focus, JNS: Pediatrics, Acta Neurochirurgica, Surgical Neurology International, Neurosurgical Review, and Neurosurgical Clinics). Board members were identified from journal websites. Data was obtained from journal websites, program faculty lists, or physician online profiles. Editors with medical degrees (MD or equivalent) were included. Gender differences were compared using Student’s t-test and chi-squared analysis. RESULTS: 722 board members were examined (female n=65; male n=650; unidentified n=7). Overall, women had fewer years in practice (p=0.002) while men were more likely to have additional degrees (p=0.009) and to have higher h-indices (p&lt;0.0001). Within the editorial boards of Neurosurgery and Acta Neurochirurgica, men were more likely to have been in practice longer (p=0.014;p=0.023), and to have higher h-indices (p=0.003;p=0.025). Male editors for JNS: Spine and World Neurosurgery were more likely to have higher h-indices (p=0.007;p=0.018). CONCLUSION: Women constitute ∼8% of the editorial boards for top neurosurgical journals. While this is comparable to the amount of practicing female academic neurosurgeons, much needs to be done to achieve gender parity in competitive, high-ranking positions. The differences in years in practice and h-index suggest that this discrepancy may improve with time as more women enter practice and produce scientific literature. Efforts to recruit and retain women in neurosurgery should be pursued to rectify this discrepancy.

Leadership Roles, Academic Appointments, and Scholarly Activity-Does a Fellowship after Plastic Surgery Training Make a Difference?

Background Fellowship training is becoming more popular in plastic surgery, with over half of residents pursuing advanced training. Here, we investigate how clinical and research fellowship training impacts career trajectory and scholastic achievement in academic plastic surgery. Methods Plastic surgery faculty members, from programs recognized by the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons, were identified using institutional Web sites. Data extracted included faculty demographics, training history, academic positions, and research productivity. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using t -tests and chi-square, respectively. Results In total, 949 faculty members were included, with 657 (69%) having completed fellowship training. Integrated program residents were more likely to complete a fellowship when compared with independent residents ( p < 0.0001). Fellowship trained faculty were more likely to have graduated from a higher ranked residency program, in terms of both overall and research reputation ( p = 0.005 and p = 0.016, respectively). When controlling for years in practice, there was no difference found in number of publications, Hirsch index (h-index), or National Institutes of Health funding between faculty between the two cohorts ( p > 0.05). In a subanalysis comparing hand, craniofacial, microsurgery, and research fellowships, those who completed a research fellowship had higher h-indices and were more likely to reach full professor status ( p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). Fellowship training had no effect on being promoted to Chief/Chair of departments ( p = 0.16). Conclusion Fellowship training is common among academic plastic surgeons. In this study, both clinical and research fellowships were associated with various aspects of academic success. However, fellowship training alone did not affect attainment of leadership positions.