Number Of First Author Publications Research Articles

Analysis of the pediatric surgery match: factors predicting outcome

Applicants in the NRMP for pediatric surgery have little objective data available regarding factors predicting successful matching. We analyzed data from applicants at our institution to attempt to identify parameters correlated with three outcomes: successfully matching, or attaining either a top ten or top three ranking in our final submitted match list. After IRB approval, we reviewed ERAS documents for all applicants (n = 146) over 3 years (candidates for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 fellowship years). An interview was offered to 75% of the applicants (Table 1). We analyzed over 20 factors; including demographics, number of publications and first author publications, number of book chapters, national presentations, prior match attempts, advanced degrees, quality of recommendation letters, and ABSITE scores. Significant variables were evaluated with multiple logistic regression analysis to identify independent predictors. Variables correlated with successful outcome for each of the three endpoints are shown in Table 2. The number of peer-reviewed publications and first author publications, and AOA membership were highly correlated with a favorable outcome for all three endpoints. High ABSITE scores were significantly correlated with top ten rank. Research experience and outstanding letters of recommendation were significantly associated with a top ten ranking and overall match success. Variables associated only with overall match success included number of book chapters, graduation from a US medical school, quality of recommendation letters, and being granted an interview at our institution. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated no independent factors for overall match success; number of publications was significant for both top ten and top three ranking (P = 0.006 for each); number of first author publications (P = 0.002) and AOA membership (P = 0.03) were independent predictors for top three ranking. Applicant variables associated with success in the match included quality of letters, number and type of publications, research experience, graduation from a US medical school, and AOA membership. Factors not correlated with outcome included advanced degrees (PhD, Masters), other fellowship training, and community-based versus university-based residency training. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated no independent factors for overall match success.

Worldwide Academic Contributions of Japanese Neurosurgeons -Annual Meeting: President's Keynote Lecture-

Based on the data reported in the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy 2010, Japan is ranked in fourth place in the world in terms of the numbers of the articles in the fields of clinical medicine. However, there had not been any objective data regarding the numbers of publications by neurosurgeons. As it is important for neurosurgeons to realize the extent of academic contributions by the neurosurgeons in different countries, the numbers of publications in the major journals by the members of the Japan Neurosurgical Society and those from neurosurgical institutions around the world were analyzed using both the biomedical literature database PubMed and the publication database "ISI Web of Knowledge." Parts of the results were presented in the 69th Annual Meeting of the Japan Neurosurgical Society. As to the number of neurosurgical publications in English from the top 9 countries, the US has been consistently in first place and Japan in second. However, the number of publications from Japan has been decreasing since 2000. With regards to the "top 8 journals" such as the Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association, the number of first-author publications by Japanese neurosurgeons increased in the late 1980s and had been 2-9 articles per year until recently. In the "top 12 neuroscience journals" which include Stroke, Neuro-Oncology, Cancer Research, and others, Japan had been in the third next to the US and UK till 2004, but Germany surpassed Japan in 2005. In the "top 6 clinical journals" such as the Journal of Neurosurgery and Neurosurgery, the US has been consistently keeping first place and Japan second place since 1977. Searches using the key word elucidated that Japanese neurosurgeons are greatly contributing in the field of "aneurysm." Regarding the number of publications per neurosurgeon, Canada and UK are in the forefront and Japan is down to eighth place. Japanese neurosurgeons have been contributing greatly next to the Americans to the field of clinical neurosurgery and neuroscience by publishing in English. However, the number of publications by Japanese neurosurgeons has been declining since 2000. The Japan Neurosurgical Society must come up with countermeasures to address this problem.

Awareness of Publication Guidelines and the Responsible Conduct of Research

We have conducted a longitudinal survey of NIH-funded F32 postdoctoral fellows to determine if mandated instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has measurable effects on awareness of, attentiveness to, and behavioral judgments about research ethics and authorship and publication. Of 418 F32 fellows participating in the study, 50% were aware of and had referred to guidelines on authorship and publication practices while 50% were either unaware of or had not referred to guidelines. Groups were similar with regard to total number of peer-reviewed publications and total number of first author publications, years of research experience, years since completing their doctoral degree, and receipt of RCR training. The equal distribution of guideline awareness and use, and group similarities with regard to career development and achievement provided us with an opportunity to consider whether awareness of and use of guidelines is associated with broader judgments about author roles and responsibilities. The findings suggest that awareness and utilization of guidelines are, at best, only modestly associated with more ethically appropriate judgments and attitudes about author roles and responsibilities among novice F32’s. K.A.B., C.L.F., and F.L.M. designed the survey instrument. K.A.B. oversaw data collection, and K.A.B. and C.L.F. performed data compilation and statistical analysis. All three authors participated equally in data interpretation. K.A.B. wrote the first draft of the Methods and Results section and F.L.M. wrote the Introduction section and performed the literature search. All authors co-wrote and co-edited the Discussion section. None of the authors have any financial, personal, or institutional conflicts of interest related to the performance of this research or the reporting of its results. This research was carried out under a human subject research protocol, reviewed and approved by the Virginia Commonwealth University Institutional Review Board (VCU IRB # 2826; current approval date, 5/12/04) This research was supported by the Research on Research Integrity Program, an ORI/NIH collaboration: USPHS Grant NS042494 to Virginia Commonwealth University (F.L.M., Principal Investigator). We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of William E. McGarvey and Walter Schaffer, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health.

Assessing institutional sources of scholarly productivity in human resource development from 1995 to 2001

AbstractThis article is intended as a step in determining the highest procedures of scholarship in human resource development. This analysis adds to the existing body of literature on excellent sources of HRD scholarship by analyzing proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development conferences and reporting on the top institutions according to the number of first‐author publications from each institution. In addition, this article provides the most written‐about topics in HRD according to the number of papers published on these topics in the AHRD conference symposia. The importance of this analysis is its contribution to identifying criteria for determining outstanding sources of HRD scholarship.