Measures Of Research Productivity Research Articles

Bibliometric Analysis of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Maxillofacial Fractures.

Facial bone fractures are a common occurrence in trauma cases, particularly in India where road traffic accidents contribute significantly. Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI) has become a potent instrument to help medical professionals diagnose and treat facial fractures. This study aims to perform a bibliometric analysis, that is, a quantitative and qualitative analysis, of publications focusing on the role of AI in detecting facial bone fractures. Bibliometric analysis can be a very strong measure of research productivity and analysis of trends within a given area of research. Data were drawn from the Dimensions AI database; 58 relevant scientific articles were analyzed in this study. This bibliometric analysis aims to assess the volume of research in this area, identifying key trends, authors, institutions, and countries contributing to the literature. The Dimensions AI database was used to gather and analyze relevant data, shedding light on the research impact through indicators such as the h-index, citation counts, and publication trends. This review will depict the landscape of research work, highlighting the rising influence of the use of AI for accurate diagnostics in facial bone fractures and further detailing gaps and potential avenues of future research directed toward solutions such as standardizing datasets and clinical integration.

Measuring Research Capacity: Development of the PACER Tool.

Evaluating research activity in research departments and education programs is conventionally accomplished through measurement of research funding or bibliometrics. This limited perspective of research activity restricts a more comprehensive evaluation of a program's actual research capacity, ultimately hindering efforts to enhance and expand it. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the existing literature pertaining to the measurement of research productivity in research institutions. Using these findings, the study aimed to create a standardized research measurement tool, the Productivity And Capacity Evaluation in Research (PACER) Tool. The evidence review identified 726 relevant articles in a literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, and Google Scholar with the keywords "research capacity" and "research productivity." Thirty-nine English-language studies applicable to research measurement were assessed in full and 20 were included in the data extraction. Capacity/productivity metrics were identified, and the relevance of each metric was data-charted according to 3 criteria: the metric was objective, organizational in scale, and applicable to varied research domains. This produced 42 research capacity/productivity metrics that fell into 7 relevant categories: bibliometrics, impact, ongoing research, collaboration activities, funding, personnel, and education/academics. With the expertise of a Delphi panel of researchers, research leaders, and organizational leadership, 31 of these 42 metrics were included in the final PACER Tool. This multifaceted tool enables research departments to benchmark research capacity and research productivity against other programs, monitor capacity development over time, and provide valuable strategic insights for decisions such as resource allocation.

Does Gender Predict Research Productivity? The Case of Prolific Suicidologists.

Aims: While there is substantial literature on gender and research productivity, bearing mixed results, no study is available for suicidology. The present investigation fills this gap and focuses on an influential elite. Methods: Data are taken from the Web of Science (WoS). They refer to the most prolific suicidologists (N = 116) with 70 or more works on the subject of suicide cited in WoS. Measures of research productivity include the number of works on suicide, citations to these works, and the h-index. The link between gender and the measures of research productivity is adjusted for years of experience, membership in a local research cluster, and region of the world. Results: Adjusting for the other predictors, males had more publications than females. However, gender did not predict either measure of quality of research (citations, h-index). Years of experience, as well as membership in a research cluster, predicted research productivity in most analyses. Region was unrelated to research productivity. Limitations: Further work on productivity might assess additional potential predictors including marital status, grant funding, and presence of young children. Conclusion: There is no significant difference between the genders in research quality. Similar results have been noted in previous work on prolific scientists.

Current trends and perspectives of scoliosis research society travel fellows

PurposeThis study aims to measure the impact of the Scoliosis Research Society’s travel fellowship on a spinal surgeon’s career.MethodsA non-incentivized survey was sent to 78 previous SRS junior travel fellows from 1993 to 2021. The questionnaire assessed fellowship influence on academic and administrative positions, professional society memberships, and commercial relationships. The trend of these quantitative measures was created according to a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) calculation of the reported values. The Scopus database was queried for all fellows’ publication counts and h-index before the fellowship, as well as 3 years, 5 years, and currently after the fellowship. A control cohort of matched surgeons who did not participate in travel fellowships was used to compare research productivity measures relative to travel fellows.ResultsThis study had a 73% response rate. Over the periods of 3–5 years after the fellowship, and up to the present, the mean publication count increased by 31.0%, 31.6%, and 46.4%, respectively. Over the same interval, the mean h-index increased by 19.5%, 17.3%, and 11.3%, respectively. From the year of their respective fellowship to present day, the fellows observed a mean CAGR of + 3.2% in academic positions, + 6.7% in administrative positions, + 2.3% in society memberships, and + 4.7% in commercial relations. Previous fellows concurred the fellowship changed their clinical practice (42.1% Strongly Agree, 36.8% Agree), expanded their network (71.9% Strong Agree, 24.6% Agree), expanded their research (33.3% Strongly Agree, 54.4% Agree), and improved their surgical technique (33.3% Strongly Agree, 49.1% Agree).ConclusionRobust feedback from previous fellows suggests a traveling fellowship has a meaningful impact on a surgeon’s research productivity and career achievements.

Do Global Excellence Initiatives Lead to an Increase in Research Productivity: The Case of Kazakhstan’s World-Class University

Global excellence initiatives have been widely implemented across various regions to elevate the quality and standing of higher education institutions. The establishment of world-class universities have been one of the most frequent approaches within the global excellence initiatives. A notable example of the successful establishment of a novel world-class university is Nazarbayev University in Kazakhstan, which is expected to transform Kazakhstani society by training high-qualified cadre, stimulating research and innovative activity in the country, and serving the larger society in terms of intellectual leadership and global citizenship initiatives. Despite the great promise, the university has been greatly scrutinized for the financial burden associated with its creation and maintenance. The public attention, however, has not resulted in a sufficient number of studies evaluating the various impacts of the university on Kazakhstani society and the Central Asian region at large. This study attempts to fill the gap by analyzing bibliometric data from the Web of Science to estimate the effect of the creation of Nazarbayev University on research productivity measures in Kazakhstan. More specifically, interrupted time series is applied to the data panel from 2000 to 2010 to determine whether trends in research productivity measured in terms of the number of publications, number of citations, and the size of the scholarly community (as a proxy for research capacity strengthening effect) have been affected by the establishment of the world-class university in the country. The study fills the existing gap in prior research on global academic excellence initiatives and world-class universities by suggesting quantitative insights on the research productivity effects of the initiatives.

Research Productivity of Institutes in Hospitality and Tourism: Integrating Metrics of Total and per Capita Contribution

ABSTRACT Despite the existence of many published articles that examined research productivity in hospitality and tourism, prior studies on research productivity per capita in institutes are rare, if ever any. The novel contribution of this research lies in the utilization of a new method to measure research productivity by analyzing the total and per capita research productivity of the top 50 most productive institutes in hospitality and tourism. The findings showed that the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and Sun Yat-Sen University ranked in the top two positions in total research productivity in 2022 and 2023. However, regarding faculty research productivity per capita, the University of Queensland and Washington State University claimed the first and second spots in 2022, respectively. Xiamen University and the University of Macau emerged as leaders in 2023. These divergent results depict the multi-facets of an institute’s research productivity, urging researchers to comprehend the research productivity of institutes from various aspects.

Factors Impacting Academic Productivity and Satisfaction of Surgeon-scientists: A Nationwide Survey.

To identify factors related to research success for academic surgeons. Many recognize mounting barriers to scientific success for academic surgeons, but little is known about factors that predict success for individual surgeons. A phase 1 survey was emailed to department chairpersons at highly funded US departments of surgery. Participating chairpersons distributed a phase 2 survey to their faculty surgeons. Training- and faculty-stage exposures and demographic data were collected and compared with participant-reported measures of research productivity. Five primary measures of productivity were assessed including number of grants applied for, grants funded, papers published, first/senior author papers published, and satisfaction in research. Twenty chairpersons and 464 faculty surgeons completed the survey, and 444 faculty responses were included in the final analysis. Having a research-focused degree was significantly associated with more grants applied for (PhD, incidence rate ratio (IRR)=6.93; masters, IRR=4.34) and funded (PhD, IRR=4.74; masters, IRR=4.01) compared to surgeons with only clinical degrees (all P<0.01). Having a formal research mentor was significantly associated with more grants applied for (IRR=1.57, P=0.03) and higher satisfaction in research (IRR=2.22, P<0.01). Contractually protected research time was significantly associated with more grants applied for (IRR=3.73), grants funded (IRR=2.14), papers published (IRR=2.12), first/senior authors published (IRR=1.72), and research satisfaction (Odds ratio=2.15) (all P<0.01). The primary surgeon-identified barrier to research productivity was lack of protection from clinical burden. Surgeons pursuing research-focused careers should consider the benefits of attaining a research-focused degree, negotiating for contractually protected research time, and obtaining formal research mentorship.

Is the h-Index Enough? A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of 871 Academic Plastic Surgeons and Their Departments/Divisions.

In plastic surgery academia, research output is heavily used as a metric of accreditation, from assessing residency applicants to evaluating faculty for promotion. The h index, defined as an author's h papers with at least h citations, is commonly used as a measure of academic success. However, the index itself disfavors junior researchers, favors publication quantity, and discounts highly cited works. Given the importance of bibliometrics within plastic surgery, there is a paramount need to adopt additional metrics to measure research productivity. The authors sought to validate the use of time-independent bibliometrics to complement the h index in measuring citation impact. The genders and academic titles of plastic surgeons affiliated with US plastic surgery programs were recorded. Author publications were retrieved from Scopus. Bibliometrics software was used to calculate the following metrics per surgeon: h index, e index, and g index. Time-adjusted versions of these indices were used to correct for the number of years since first publication. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) are reported. Departmental ranks were determined using the cumulative sum of time-corrected indices and compared with Doximity departmental research rankings. P < 0.05 was deemed significant. Indices were calculated for 871 academic plastic surgeons in 85 departments/divisions. Men had statistically greater h index (median, 13.0 [IQR, 7.0-21.0] vs 6.0 [IQR, 3.0-13]; P < 0.001), e index (18.3 [IQR, 10.0-28.7] vs 11.1 [IQR, 5.5-18.4]; P < 0.001), and g index (23.0 [IQR, 11.0-39.0] vs 11.0 [IQR, 5.0-22.0]; P < 0.001) than women. Professors had the highest median time-uncorrected indices. After adjusting for the number of years since an author's first publication, there were no significant differences in m quotient (men: 0.66 [IQR, 0.40-0.98] vs women: 0.57 [IQR, 0.33-0.90]; P = 0.05) and ec index (men: 0.93 [IQR, 0.62-1.3] vs women: 0.87 [IQR, 0.50-1.3]; P = 0.08) between genders. Departmental chairs had significantly higher indices than other faculty after correcting for time. The calculated program rankings were low to moderately correlated with that of Doximity (correlation coefficient τ = 0.49 [95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P < 0.001]). Men and women have statistically similar citation patterns after correcting for the time. Citation differences between academic levels are less pronounced when controlling for time, suggesting comparable research quality between academic roles.

Salary inequality in young professors: evidence from public U.S. economic department

ABSTRACT The current literature provides little empirical evidence on the study of salaries for young faculty members in the economic department, possibly because effective recognition of their research productivity remains a difficult challenge. To address this research gap, we analyse the effects of gender, PhD graduation school rank and undergraduate major on the salaries of young economics professors with varying experience levels. We create a novel dataset by manually collecting detailed and time-varying research productivity measures and demographic information of young economics professors from the top 50 public research universities in the U.S. We use double machine learning to obtain consistent estimators, which allows us to account for non-parametric features associated with the high-dimensional control variable set. Our findings indicate that in experience years 4 to 8, which is the time most faculty tenured, the gender effect estimates are statistically significant and large enough in magnitude to have practical implications. For PhD graduation school rank and undergraduate major, the effects in experience years 7 to 9 are large in magnitude but do not have statistical significance.

Assessing Research Productivity and Quality Across Disciplines in the School of Arts and Sciences at the Lebanese American University

The academic performance of faculty members, as reflected by their research productivity and quality, is a crucial factor in determining aninstitution’s reputation and ranking. However, research productivity varies across academic disciplines and is influenced by multiple factors. In this study we investigate the impact of the academic discipline on research productivity and quality among faculty members in the School of Arts and Sciences at the Lebanese American University, and explore potential factors that could affect their research productivity. We measure research productivity and quality using indicators such as publication count, publication pattern preferences, and average number of citations per publication. Additionally, we assess the effects of individual, institutional and occasional factors on research productivity through a questionnaire distributed to faculty members. Our findings indicate that faculty members in hard disciplines tend to be more productive and have more cited works than their counterparts in soft disciplines, but both groups target top journals at similar rates. Furthermore, international collaboration is a significant predictor of advanced research productivity in hard disciplines. Additionally, both groups agree that teaching loads can limit the time available for research and that the research funding and equipment should be improved. Finally, we note the COVID-19 lockdown and the economic crisis in Lebanon have decreased research activity among faculty members in hard disciplines.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the gender gap in research productivity within academia.

Using measures of research productivity to assess academic performance puts women at a disadvantage because gender roles and unconscious biases, operating both at home and in academia, can affect research productivity. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research productivity has been the subject of a number of studies, including studies based on surveys and studies based on numbers of articles submitted to and/or published in journals. Here, we combine the results of 55 studies that compared the impact of the pandemic on the research productivity of men and women; 17 of the studies were based on surveys, 38 were based on article counts, and the total number of effect sizes was 130. We find that the gender gap in research productivity increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the largest changes occurring in the social sciences and medicine, and the changes in the biological sciences and TEMCP (technology, engineering, mathematics, chemistry and physics) being much smaller.

Examination of the Novel National Institutes of Health-Supported Relative Citation Ratio, a Measure of Research Productivity, Among Academic Plastic Surgeons.

Considerable interest has been devoted to quantifying research productivity for the purposes of academic appointment and promotion in plastic surgery. A novel bibliometric, the relative citation ratio (RCR), integrates features unavailable in prior metrics, such as the h-index, including the ability to compare researchers in distinct fields. This investigation examines the RCR in relation to established measures of academic productivity and provides the benchmark data in plastic surgery. Online sources were queried to identify the characteristics of 955 academic plastic surgeons from 94 programs, ie, academic rank, gender, degrees, and fellowships. Bibliometric data were acquired using the iCite and Scopus databases. Comparative and correlational analyses of variables were performed. Academic plastic surgeons were exceptionally productive, with a mean RCR of 1.20 (interquartile range, 0.79-1.67) and a weighted RCR of 17.68 (interquartile range, 5.14-52.48). Increased mean RCR was significantly associated with advanced academic rank and fellowship training. Increased weighted RCR was significantly associated with advanced academic rank, male gender, PhD acquisition, publication experience, and fellowship training. The h-index was weakly correlated with mean RCR but strongly correlated with weighted RCR and publication experience. The RCR was associated with established markers of academic productivity, indicating its validity as a reliable field-normalized measure for the evaluation of plastic surgery faculty. Because scholarly output is a potential factor with respect to decisions of hiring, promotion, and allocation of funding, this modality of standardized comparison is paramount for plastic surgeons who exist within a larger general surgery department.

PC38. The Relative Citation Ratio: Examining a Novel Measure of Research Productivity among Plastic and Orthopedic Hand Surgeons

PURPOSE: Measurement of academic output by surgeons is a major factor in research funding and promotion. Historically, the Hirsch index (h-index) has been utilized by many departments. This metric, however, has been re-examined due to concerns of not being field normalized, with subsequent inaccurate cross-specialty comparisons. The relative citation ratio (RCR) was recently developed by the National Institutes of Health to more effectively and accurately describe academic output for each medical specialty. The aim of this study is to assess the correlation of RCR to H-index within academic hand surgeons. METHODS: This study assessed over 200 hand surgeons associated with American Society for Surgery of the Hand and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education certified hand surgery fellowships. Weighted RCR, mean RCR, max RCR were quantified using mean and weighted RCR data queried from the iCite database. H-indices were all determined from publicly available sources. RESULTS: We identified significant association between H-index and weighted RCR. In addition, we found that increased h-index and weighted RCR were significantly associated with elevated academic rank, between assistant/associate and associate/full professorship respectively. Of note, there were no differences seen in the mean RCR across ranks. CONCLUSION: Metrics of academic output by surgeons have critical weight in decisions around research funding and career trajectory. For hand surgeons, the RCR appears to function similarly to the h-index, identifying increased output associated with elevated academic rank. The lack of difference in mean RCR by rank may suggest that volume of publications remains incentivized in academic surgery.

Scholarly Output on Dentistry and COVID-19: A Global Bibliometric Analysis

Background: Bibliometric studies help in quantifying the pattern of research published in a particular area of interest to get the measure of research productivity. In this context, we analyzed the dental and COVID-19 research papers published from December 2019 to January 2021 globally. Method: The articles were retrieved from the PubMed and WHO COVID -19 databases using MeSH terms and keywords. The data downloaded as excel and extracted bibliometric information’s and analyzed using Epi-info (7.2) software. Result: We obtained 800 research articles after removing duplicates and non-relevant articles from 1,823 articles from these two databases. The articles were published by 475 institutions in 62 countries. Among the listed countries, more publications were done by the United States of America (USA) (n=135;16.8%). The majority of the papers were published in June 2020 (n=114). The King's College London had the most number of publications (n=15; 1.9%). The majority of the articles were original articles (n=592; 74%). Conclusion: The study reports a gradual increase in publications over the months and a slowing down at the end of the year. The countries such as the USA, England, Italy, and China published more articles and this correlates with the number of covid-19 cases.

KIBS Role in the Innovation and Internationalization Processes of Firms: a Bibliometric Overview

In recent decades, KIBS have been one of the most dynamic segments of the service sector in European countries and are one of the fastest growing sectors of the European Union economy. KIBS are firms that provide knowledge-intensive inputs to the business processes of other organizations.&#x0D; In the regional and national economy, KIBS have played a central role in innovation as carriers, producers and mediators of knowledge. Consequently, this knowledge has a critical impact on the internationalization of firms. New sources of information and knowledge help firms compete and grow in markets of which they possess little or no prior knowledge. Firms face difficulties in foreign markets, so they need to develop a strong knowledge base to successfully compete across borders. The intensity of knowledge and the diversity of knowledge sources positively impact both the internationalization of firms and their innovation. Knowledge-intensive firms represent a link between their customers and the knowledge base available across the economy, and therefore act as a catalyst for innovation and internationalization.&#x0D; Recognizing the important role played by KIBS and to provide as overall picture of the research field, a bibliometric approach was performed, based on a mapping of scientific publications, intellectual structure and research trends related to the area under study, highlighting the current approaches of reference on the subject of innovation, internationalization and knowledge. In light of this consideration, the main objective of this study is to identify some of the most relevant research in this field and some of the newest trends, according to the information found in the Web of Science database, thus contributing to the enrichment of the existing literature. The specific objectives of this study are as follows: (1) to identify how the concepts of KIBS, innovation and internationalization are defined in the literature and assess the evolution achieved in the field of research; (2) to identify and measure research productivity, the trend of collaboration between countries, and the main and most relevant journals and authors; and (3) to analyze and map co-citations and research topics to identify the intellectual structure of the literature.

Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health–Supported Relative Citation Ratio Among Fellowship-Trained American Orthopaedic Joint Reconstruction Surgery Faculty: A New Bibliometric Measure of Scientific Influence

BackgroundThe relative citation ratio (RCR), a novel National Institutes of Health–Supported measure of research productivity, allows for accurate interdisciplinary comparison of publication influence. This study evaluates the RCR of fellowship-trained adult reconstructive orthopaedic surgeons with the goal of analyzing potentially influential physician demographics. MethodsAdult Reconstruction Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education fellowship-trained faculty for orthopaedic residency programs were identified via departmental websites. The National Institutes of Health’s iCite database was retrospectively reviewed for mean RCR, weighted RCR, and publication count by surgeon. Multivariate analyses were performed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and analyses of variance testing to compare sex, career length, academic rank, and professional degrees in addition to an MD or DO. Significance was considered P < .05. ResultsA total of 488 fellowship-trained adult reconstruction faculty from 144 programs were included in the analysis. Overall, the faculty recorded a median RCR of 1.65 (interquartile range: 1.01-2.28) and a median weighted RCR of 16.59 (interquartile range: 3.98-61.92). The weighted RCR and total number of publications were associated with academic rank and career longevity, while the mean RCR was associated with academic rank. The median RCR ranged from 1.12 to 1.87 for all subgroups. ConclusionAdult reconstruction faculty are exceptionally productive and generate highly impactful studies as evidenced by the high median RCR value relative to the National Institutes of Health standard value of 1.0. Our data have important implications in the assessment of grant outcomes, promotion, and continued evaluation of research influence within the hip and knee community.

Gender pay and productivity in UK universities: Evidence from research-intensive Business Schools

Women academics earn less than men, even after controlling for a range of productivity-related covariates. However, the latter usually do not include direct measures of research productivity. This paper uses data from the Higher Education Statistical Authority (HESA) confirming the existence of unconditional and conditional gender wage gaps. Data separately collected for the recent 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF) shows men are more research productive but that after controlling for academic grade there is no gender productivity gap. For both wage and productivity gaps, there are barriers for women to achieve the research productivity needed to be promoted, and reducing these would go a long way to eliminating such gaps.

Index Development and Standardization to Measure the Research Productivity of Agricultural Scientists

Research Productivity is the work outcome of the scientists in the area of research in a given period of time. Research productivity is the work outcome of agricultural scientists with a minimum of 3 years of experience in research, in form of publications, research projects undertaken, technologies developed, knowledge generated, research guidance off ered, awards received, recognition achieved and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) generated. A number of indices have been used so far to assess research productivity like, h-index, g-index, AR-index RP-index and CP-index, etc. In the present study, an index comprehensively covering all the aspects that contribute to research productivity of agricultural scientists was developed. Initially 9 indicators that are assumed to measure research productivity were identifi ed and given to 30 experts for judgement. Only those indicators with relevancy rating score more than 0.8 were selected for inclusion in the study. They were publication behaviour, research activities undertaken, technologies/knowledge generated, research guidance and mentoring, awards and recognition, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) generation. Key words: Research productivity of agricultural scientists; Publication behaviour; Intellectual property rights.

Gender-based salary differences in academic medicine: a retrospective review of data from six public medical centers in the Western USA

ObjectivesWe assessed the effect of gender, rank and research productivity on compensation for faculty at academic medical centres.DesignA web-based retrospective review of salary for professors in 2016.SettingFaculty from six state-run,...

Representation of women on editorial boards of ophthalmology journals: protocol for a cross-sectional study

IntroductionThere is a notable under-representation of women in leadership positions in ophthalmology despite the increasing number of women as ophthalmologists. Gender inequality in editorial boards of ophthalmology journals has not...