Total Publication Counts Research Articles

A spatial scientometric analysis of urban planning publications from 2010–2020: geographic disparities in urban planning knowledge production

PurposeThis paper analyzes and illustrates the spatial distribution of publications in international urban planning journals from 2010 to 2020.Design/methodology/approachThe study employs the Biblioshiny bibliometrix package in R to analyze 44,123 articles from 95 international planning journals. To conduct the spatial scientometric analysis, we adopted the United Nations’ geoscheme focusing on three geographical scales: country, subregion, and region. Collaboration patterns at the country and subregional levels were examined using the VOSviewer tool.FindingsThe study found evidence of a spatial polarization of urban planning scholarly knowledge production. Scholars based in the United States and the United Kingdom consistently published at higher rates than any other country in our data set. The region producing the largest number of publications was Europe, consisting of 39.92% of the total publication count. However, urban planning scholars from the Global South authored only 20.96% of planning publications from 2010–2020. Centralization of planning research is also evident within each region and subregion. As such, both the Global North and the Global South should not be framed as homogenous entities and spatial patterns of knowledge production should not be generalized. The analysis also established the emerging role of Northern America as a major collaborator in inter-country and inter-subregional research collaborations. Co-authorship patterns indicate low intra-regional collaboration in planning research, except for Europe.Originality/valueThis article argues that a culture of exclusivity may be occurring in urban planning publication production. By highlighting the spatial disparities in knowledge production, we emphasize the need to examine the structural and institutional barriers that exclude urban planning knowledge emerging from the peripheries in international planning journals.

Knowledge mapping of macrophage and its role in aneurysm from 1999 to 2022: A bibliometric analysis

BackgroundVarious factors play crucial roles in aneurysm development and prognosis. Macrophages have recently emerged as a major research focus. Despite the numerous studies on the role and function of macrophages in aneurysm pathogenesis, no bibliometric analyses have focused on this topic. ObjectiveThis study aimed to analyze articles related to macrophages and aneurysms to reveal trends, hotspots, and new frontiers in macrophage-related aneurysm research. MethodsWe retrieved and incorporated 1211 articles from the Science Citation Index Expanded database of the Web of Science Core Collection between 1999 and 2022. The data were analyzed and visualized using CiteSpace and VOSviewer, and Microsoft Excel 2019 was used to plot the data. ResultsThe most influential articles were published between 1999 and 2022, with a total citation count of 43870. This study encompassed a comprehensive analysis of 74 research directions. The year with the highest number of publications was 2021 when 109 articles were published. 'ARTERIOSCLEROSIS THROMBOSIS AND VASCULAR BIOLOGY' journal has made significant contributions by publishing the highest number of articles (99 articles), while funding support primarily came from the National Institutes of Health and United States Department of Health and Human Services. The United States exerted a substantial influence within this field, with a total publication count of 453 publications and the highest centrality value (0.63). Recent studies have focused on understanding the developmental processes underlying aneurysms and devising preventive measures to effectively impede disease progression. ConclusionsOur analysis demonstrates the rapid growth in research exploring the relationship between macrophages and aneurysms over the past two decades. Continued exploration and collaboration among different specialties and manufacturers will facilitate innovative approaches for effective management strategies that target patients with diverse forms of aneurysms.

A PEEP INTO THE FUTURE THROUGH THE PAST: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS ON WOMEN TRAVELERS

The research explores the progress of studies on women travelers, examining publication trends, top contributors, collaborations, and thematic areas, while also exploring ways to make travel more convenient. For the achievement of these research questions, a bibliometric analysis has been conducted using data from the articles published in 41 journals dating from 1982 to 2023. For bibliometric analysis, collected data was analyzed with descriptive analysis, science mapping as bibliographic coupling, citation metrics, prestige analysis, keyword co-occurrence metrics; and network analysis as co-author analysis and co-citation analysis. The study reveals the top ten authors, organizations, and countries in women traveler-related literature, but a low total publication count suggests the need for comprehensive research. Five major themes that emerged were Women Travelers and Solo Travel, Women Travelers and Travel Motivation, Women Travelers and Purchase Intention, Women Travelers and Girlfriend Getaways, and Women Travelers, and Sexual Behaviour. The study identifies research gaps for future studies and suggests managerial actions to make women's travel more convenient. The study's values lie in enhancing the understanding of women traveler research, raising awareness of research frontiers, and guiding future directions in business travel niche market segments.

Predicting academic productivity among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons fellowship faculty from publications acquired before and during surgical training

Orthopedic residency and fellowship applicants with a strong research record are highly valued for their potential in continuing academic excellence. Despite this, the association between research productivity during training and future academic productivity as an attending orthopedic surgeon is not well-established. We assess the effects of research output during different periods of surgical training as well as residency location on long-term academic productivity as an attending shoulder and elbow surgeon. A search of the 2022-2023 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Fellowship Directory was conducted to identify a list of orthopedic shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty members. Each surgeon's residency, fellowship and current institution of practice were determined and stratified by geographic location. Total publication counts acquired before residency, during residency, during fellowship, and after fellowship were collected for each faculty member. Attending publication rates and H-indices were calculated. A multivariate linear regression model was created, and significance was set at a P value <.05. A total of 149 shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty members representing 34 fellowship programs were identified. The average number of total publications per surgeon was 88.8±102. The average attending publication rate was 5.29±6.89 publications per year. The average H-index for included surgeons was 27.8±24.4. The number of publications acquired before residency (β=0.293; P<.001), during residency (β=0.110; P=.025) and during fellowship (β=0.593; P<.001) were significantly associated with an increased attending publication rate, but no association was observed with the H-index [before residency (β=-0.221; P=.574), during residency (β=0.045; P=.866), during fellowship (β=0.198; P=.678)]. There were no significant differences in total publication count (P=.397), attending publication rate (P=.237), or H-index (P=.364) based on location of residency training. Research output before and during surgical training is predictive of continued academic productivity as a shoulder and elbow surgeon. In particular, greater productivity during surgical fellowship was most predictive of academic output as an attending. While long-term academic productivity does not seem to be influenced by the geographic location of residency training, attending surgeons practicing in the Midwest had significantly greater total publication counts and H-indices but similar annual publication rates.

Assessing the contribution of semiconductors to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) from 2017 to 2022

Semiconductor development is a major driving force for global economic growth. However, synchronizing it with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations remains a critical challenge. To gain insight into this, we analyzed SDG-related publications on semiconductors from 2017 to 2022 using the SciVal database. The study found 77,706 documents related to SDGs in the field of semiconductor research, with an overall increase in the number of publications each year. The main focus of these publications was SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), accounting for 68.9 % of the total publication count. Additionally, the results indicate that semiconductors have multifaceted potential in advancing a range of SDGs. From fostering innovations in healthcare (SDG 3), ensuring clean water access (SDG 6), catalyzing transformative industrial growth (SDG 9), to contributing to climate mitigation strategies (SDG 13), semiconductors emerge as versatile drivers of sustainable development. The respective publication percentages for these goals were 7.3 %, 5.9 %, 9.7 %, and 4.4 %, underscoring their capacity to make substantial contributions across various facets of sustainability. It's worth noting that only 2.9 % of these publications stem from academia-industry collaborations. This indicates a pressing need to facilitate collaboration between academia and industry, as such partnerships have the potential to amplify the impact of semiconductor innovations on the SDGs. The novelty of this study lies in its specific exploration through a comprehensive analysis spanning five years, revealing the alignment between semiconductor advancements and the latest SDGs. It uncovers the significance of collaborative ecosystems involving research institutions, businesses, and governments. Through these results, our study addresses a gap in the existing literature and advances semiconductor contributions to the SDGs.

A Snapshot on Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Resident Scholarly Activity: Can We Do Better?

The Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) requires oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) residents to engage in scholarly activity. Currently, it is unknown how this mandate translates into research output. The purpose of this study was to quantify the research output of OMS residents. In addition, we sought to identify characteristics associated with resident productivity. This was a cross-sectional study of all OMS residents during the 2021-2022 academic year. Attempts were made to obtain resident rosters from every CODA-accredited OMS program. Resident names were searched in PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) to identify peer-reviewed publications. Postgraduate year (PGY), program name, and total publication count during residency were recorded for each resident. Academic status and fellowship affiliation of the residency program were also included. The primary predictor was PGY level of each resident. The main outcome variable was the publication count of each OMS resident during the 2021-2022 academic year. The covariates were the academic status and the fellowship affiliation of the residency program. A program was determined academic if they were associated with a dental or medical school. Aprogram was determined fellowship associated if they had any CODA approved fellowship. Simple bivariate comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Complete resident rosters were identified for 87 residency programs. One thousand one hundred thirty two residents were queried and a total of 548 peer-reviewed publications were identified. There was a mean of 6.30 publications per program and 0.43 publications per resident. More than half of all residents had no identifiable publication. PGY5 residents averaged the most publications per resident (1.45) followed by PGY6 (1.04) and PGY4 (0.63). Academic programs had significantly more publications per resident than nonacademic programs (median of 3.00 vs 0.00, P=.02). Programs with a fellowship association also had more publications per resident (median of 5.00 vs 2.00, P<.01). Current CODA research requirements do not translate into resident publications. Publication counts appeared to slightly increase with PGY level; however, OMS resident productivity still lags far behind that of other surgical subspecialties.

The Relative Citation Ratio: Evaluating a New Measure of Scientific Influence Among Academic Sports Medicine Surgeons.

Objective measures of research influence are being increasingly utilized to evaluate and compare academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index and article citation count, are biased by time-dependent factors and are limited by a lack of field normalization. The relative citation ratio (RCR) is a new field- and time-normalized article-level metric developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the RCR among fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgeons and to analyze physician factors associated with RCR values. We hypothesized that the mean RCR score for fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgery faculty will fall above the NIH standard. Cross-sectional study. A retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship-trained sports medicine surgery faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopaedic surgery residency programs in December 2021. In eligible faculty, the mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A mean RCR value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. The data herein are presented as the median and interquartile range, in addition to the mean and standard deviation, to account for outliers of the mean and weighted RCR scores. A total of 624 fellowship-trained sports medicine surgery faculty members from 160 orthopaedic surgery residency programs were included in the analysis. Overall, faculty produced impactful research, with a median RCR of 1.6 (interquartile range, 1.0-2.2) and a median weighted RCR of 19.3 (interquartile range, 5.1-69.3). Advanced academic rank and career longevity were associated with increased weighted RCR and total publication count. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value >1.0. Study findings indicate that fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgery faculty are highly productive and produce impactful research, as evidenced by the high median RCR value relative to the benchmark NIH RCR value of 1.0.

Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health-supported relative citation ratio among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons fellowship faculty: a new bibliometric measure of scientific influence.

Publication metrics are used to evaluate and compare research productivity among academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index and article citation count, are limited by lack of field-normalization and yield inaccurate cross-specialty comparisons. Herein, we evaluate the use of a new field-normalized article-level metric developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), known as the relative citation ratio (RCR), among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) fellowship faculty and analyzed physician factors associated with RCR values. A retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all shoulder and elbow surgery fellowship faculty listed on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) directory as of November 14, 2021. Mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. Mean RCR represents the total number of article citations per year of a publication divided by the average number of citations per year received by NIH-funded papers in the same field; mean RCR serves as a measure of overall research impact. A value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. The weighted RCR represents the sum of all article-level RCR scores and is a measure of overall research productivity. Student t tests were used for two-group analyses whereas analyses of variance were used for between-group comparisons of 3 or more subgroups. A total of 145 ASES fellowship faculty members from 33 fellowship programs were included in the analysis. Overall, ASES fellowship faculty produced highly impactful research with a median RCR of 1.8 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.4-2.3) and a median weighted RCR of 67.0 (IQR 21.1-212.7). Advanced academic rank and career longevity were associated with increased weighted RCR and total publication count. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value above 1.0. ASES fellowship faculty are exceptionally productive and produce highly impactful research, as evidenced by the high median RCR value relative to the benchmark NIH RCR value of 1.0. This information can be used as a standard to assess the improvement of grant outcomes, promotion, fellowship education, and continued evaluation of research productivity in the shoulder and elbow community.

Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health–supported relative citation ratio among American orthopedic spine surgery faculty: A new bibliometric measure of scientific influence

BackgroundPublication metrics have been traditionally used to compare research productivity amongst academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics lack field-normalization and are often biased towards time-dependent publication factors. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new, field-normalized, article-level metric, known as the “relative citation ratio” (RCR), that can be used to make accurate self, departmental, and cross-specialty comparisons of research productivity. This study evaluates the use of the RCR amongst academic orthopedic spine surgery faculty and analyzes physician factors associated with RCR values. MethodsA retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship trained orthopedic spine surgery (OSS) faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopedic surgery residency program. Mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. Student t-tests were used for two-group analyses whereas the analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) was used for between-group comparisons of three or more subgroups. Statistical significance was achieved at P < 0.05. ResultsA total of 502 academic OSS faculty members from 159 institutions were included in the analysis. Overall, OSS faculty were highly productive, with a median RCR of 1.62 (IQR 1.38-2.32) and a median weighted RCR of 68.98 (IQR 21.06-212.70). Advancing academic rank was associated with weighted RCR, career longevity was associated with mean RCR score, and male sex was associated with having increased mean and weighted RCR scores. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value above 1.0. ConclusionsAcademic orthopedic spine surgery faculty produce impactful research as evidenced by the high median RCR relative to the standard value set by the NIH of 1.0. Our data can be used to evaluate research productivity in the orthopedic spine community.

The impact of pandemics on medical research publication trend: Tested on PubMed as an example through the COVID-19 era

Introduction: COVID-19 pandemic negatively influenced the entire life globally including various aspects of patients’ care. Its effect on medical research production is not known. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on medical research reporting trend. Methods: Advanced search on PubMed was performed over 2011- August, 2021. Monthly comparison was done for the years 2019, 2020, and 2021. Kruskal Wallis test was used to compare continuous distributions. Results: The total publication count showed constant increment over the study period. Faster rise was noticed on 2020 (15.7%). A steady growth in publications over the years and through the pandemic was also seen in seven studied countries with variable, both in total and also after exclusion of COVID-19 related papers. Italy and India have the highest proportions of COVID-19 related publications in comparison to the total papers in 2020, but USA has the highest quantity. Statistically significant differences exist between the first eight months of the last three years with and without counting COVID-19 related publications (p-values=0.0003907 and 0.001084, respectively). Conclusion: Our results reflect that investigators world-wide succeeded to reconfigure their work style and utilize the spared time induced by the lockdown to enrich the medical research platform.

Does Industry Sponsorship Influence Research Productivity Among Foot and Ankle Surgeons?

Category:Ankle; Basic Sciences/Biologics; OtherIntroduction/Purpose:Research productivity and success drive academic promotions in surgeons' careers. While previous studies have shown a strong relationship between research funding and academic productivity, few have analyzed that relationship in Foot and Ankle surgery. Furthermore, they have primarily used bibliometric data, such as the Hirsch index (h-index), which although is representative of an author's impact, heavily favors physicians who have been in practice longer. There is a need for more pragmatic variables that take into account career longevity. Because there is deficient literature in the analysis of the association between industry sponsorship and research productivity among foot and ankle surgeons, we sought to narrow the gap.Methods:A retrospective review of all articles from the 2018 issues of Foot and Ankle International Journal, Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery and Clinical Research on Foot and Ankle Journal were queried for authors. 303 unique United States-based non trainee Foot and Ankle authors were identified, and ultimately included in the study. They were analyzed for demographic data including sex, academic title, years in practice, and specialty. We also collected bibliometric data from Scopus, including total publications, Hirsch index (h-index), m-index, and publications-to-years in practice ratio. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database was reviewed, and total payments were collected for each author. Authors were divided into quartiles based on payment data (i.e., Quartile 1: 0-25%, etc.) for analysis. Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to identify significant differences between groups. A Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of high research productivity.Results:A total of 253 (83.5%) of authors had received at least one payment. The payments received by the authors were broken down in the following quartiles.: Quartile 1, (n=77) who had payments of 0 to $171.41; Quartile 2: (n=76) $171.42 to $2515.15; Quartile 3: (n=76): $2515.16 to $34,577.36; and Quartile 4: (n=74) $34,577.37 to $8,530,326.50. Total Publication Count, H- index, M-index and publications to years in practice ratio all were significantly different and increasing between quartiles (p<0.001 for all). Multivariate logistic regressions identified both Academic status (p<0.001) and Total payments (p<0.05) as contributing factors to total number of publications, publications per year ratio, h-index and m-index, while Author order also contributed to higher h-index. Physician Sex or Level of Evidence were not significant independent contributors to the total number of publications, H-Index, M-Index or publications per year ratio in our study.Conclusion:We identified that both industry payments and academic status are significantly correlated with higher research productivity among Foot and Ankle authors. Being the last author on a research also correlated with increased productivity. While h-index and total publications measure the research output, they fail to account for time as a confounding variable, where an individual who has been active longer in research can potentially have a higher research output. The m-index, (which is H-index divided by number of years that an author has been active) and publications-per-year ratio takes that into account, and yet our findings remained significant.

The role of gender in academic productivity, impact, and leadership among academic spine surgeons

BACKGROUND/CONTEXTWomen represent a small minority of practicing orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons, with spine surgery having a disproportionately low representation relative to other subspecialties. Previous efforts have attempted to characterize gender patterns in authorship amongst select spine journals. However, no study to our knowledge has done a comprehensive assessment of the influence of gender on academic productivity, impact, and leadership amongst academic spine faculty. PURPOSETo evaluate the impact of gender on academic productivity, promotion to leadership positions, and career advancement among academic spine faculty in the United States. STUDY DESIGNCross-sectional study. PATIENT SAMPLEAcademic spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency, North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs, and American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship programs. OUTCOME MEASURESAcademic productivity as measured by publications counts, h-index, authorship ranking as well as academic rank and leadership roles METHODSWe identified all spine faculty across orthopedic residency, orthopedic spine fellowship, and neurosurgical spine fellowship programs in the United States, and abstracted academic performance characteristics, cumulative h-index, and complete publication records for each individual faculty member. Proportions of men and women by specialty, academic rank, and leadership were compared with Fisher's exact testing, and comparison of mean h-index and publication counts compared with Wilcoxon rank-sum testing. Adjusted analyses on publication count and h-index were achieved with poisson regression analysis with gender as the primary predictor adjusting for specialty, degrees, academic rank, and seniority based on time since fellowship completion. RESULTSThe representation of women among spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency and North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs was 5.6%. On average, women had 40% fewer total publications (p=.025), h-indices approximately 5 units lower than men (p=.006), 40% fewer total high-impact publications (p=.030), half the senior author publications (p=.005), and half the high-impact senior author publications (p=.007) compared to men. After adjusting for seniority and academic rank, the number of publications in high impact journals no longer differed between men and women, although differences persisted for total publication count and the h-index. Men were significantly more likely to occupy higher academic ranks, with 25.6% of men and 9.5% of women holding the rank of full professor (p=.031), although there was no significant difference in the rate of appointment to leadership positions. Similar findings were encountered among American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship faculty. CONCLUSIONSThe present study details the low rate of women in academic spine surgery. Furthermore, gender disparities exist in publication volume, impact, and h-indices. A much lower proportion of women hold higher-ranking academic positions compared to men, though appointment to leadership positions was similar between genders. Differences in seniority and publication metrics may in part be due to the relatively younger cohort of women faculty. These findings underscore the need for active investment in diversity and pipeline efforts that facilitate recruitment and support academic productivity of women in spine surgery.

A review on h-index and its alternative indices

In recent years, several scientometrics and bibliometrics indicators were proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of individuals, institutions, colleges, universities and research teams. The h-index gives a breakthrough in the research community for assessing the scientific impact of an individual. It got a lot of attention due to its simplicity, and several other indicators were proposed to extend the properties of the h-index and to overcome its shortcomings. In this literature review, we have discussed the advantages and limitations of almost all scientometrics and bibliometrics indicators, which have been categorised into seven categories based on their properties: (1) complement of h-index, (2) based on total number of authors, (3) based on publication age, (4) combination of two indices, (5) based on excess citation count, (6) based on total publication count and (7) based on other variants. The primary objective of this article is to study all those indicators which have been proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of an individual researcher or a group of researchers.

Stimulating Peer Effects? Evidence from a Research Cluster Policy

Production of knowledge relies on peer effects and interactions between researchers. However, little is known on how much policies may stimulate these peer effects. In this paper we shed light on this question, and show how a public cluster'' policy, which funds local networks of researchers working on a common theme, affects the organization of research within these clusters and the productivity of its members. Using data from a large scale financing program in France, and relying on an identification strategy based on grades awarded by reviewers, we show that members of financed clusters increase by up to 30% the research collaborations they have with other members of the cluster, compared to researchers of non selected proposals. This very large reorganization of the research network translates into a more modest positive effect on research productivity. Paradoxically, those who benefit the most from the financing, are those who were not at the core of the research topic, i.e. were not cited in the bibliography of the research proposal, who significantly increase their links with core members and their total publication counts. Consistently, the policy reduces inequality in publication outcomes within the cluster. It stimulates peer effects to the benefit of periphery members.

Length of Fellowship Training in Population Health Research and Long-term Bibliometric Outcomes.

The length of research fellowships, the number of doctorates pursuing them, and the academic job market have changed dramatically in recent years. However, there is limited investigation on attributes of fellowships most relevant to future scientific achievement. We analyzed the association of a modifiable aspect of research training, fellowship length, with future achievement and differences across research discipline in the Division of Intramural Population Health Research (DIPHR), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Demographics of 88 DIPHR trainees from 1998 to 2016 were collected from publicly available annual reports. Research performance metrics, including total publication count and H index through 2016, were collected via Scopus. We used linear regression models for associations between fellowship length, including both total exposure to research training and duration of postdoctoral training alone, and research performance adjusted for start year, publications at entry, branch (e.g., Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Epidemiology, and Health Behavior), and mentor seniority. Each additional year of research training in DIPHR was associated with a 15% increase in H index (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.0, 28.4) and 21% more lifetime publications (95% CI = 3.0, 41.9). Results were similar, although attenuated, when evaluating postdoctoral training alone. Differences by discipline were observed, with the strongest positive associations in the Biostatistics and Bioinformatics and Epidemiology Branches. Longer training at DIPHR was associated with improved measures of research performance, though this relationship varied by discipline. Additional research is needed to tailor training programs to optimize success of trainees.

Gender Trends in Authorship of Foot and Ankle Academic Literature Over 24 Years

Underrepresentation of females in surgery is reflected in research productivity across academic medicine, with male faculty being more likely to publish research than their female counterparts. In this study, we aimed to describe the representation and longevity of female investigators among the authors of articles in 3 foot and ankle research journals from 1993 to 2017. In this retrospective bibliometric analysis, authors from 3 prominent foot and ankle research journals (Foot and Ankle International, The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, and Foot and Ankle Clinics) were identified. The proportion of female authors who were first, middle, and senior authors and the total publication count per author were determined. From 1993 to 2017, 8132 original articles were published and a total of 6597 (81.1%) had an accessible author list. This allowed us to identify 25,329 total authors, of whom 22,961 (90.7%) were successfully matched to a gender. A total of 9273 unique authors were identified (females, 19.2%). Female representation increased for first and senior authors over the years from 6.5% and 5.9% (1993 to 1997) to 16.9% and 13.1% (2013 to 2017, p < .001), respectively. However, compared with male authors, female authors published fewer articles (mean: 1.7 versus 2.4, p < .001). Of the 2691 authors who first published during 2006 to 2011, 369 authors (13%), consisting of 8.1% females and 15% males (p < .001), continued to publish 5 years after their initial publication. Female representation in academic foot and ankle research has increased >2-fold over the past 2 decades. But despite these advances, compared to male authors, female authors are less likely to continue publishing 5 years after initial publication, and on average publish fewer articles.

Curcumin: Total-Scale Analysis of the Scientific Literature.

The current study aimed to provide a comprehensive bibliometric overview of the literature on curcumin, complementing the previous reviews and meta-analyses on its potential health benefits. Bibliometric data for the current analysis were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection database, using the search string TOPIC=(“curcumin*”), and analyzed by the VOSviewer software. The search yielded 18,036 manuscripts. The ratio of original articles to reviews was 10.4:1. More than half of the papers have been published since 2014. The major contributing countries were the United States, China, India, Japan, and South Korea. These publications were mainly published in journals representing the following scientific disciplines: biochemistry, chemistry, oncology, and pharmacology. There was a significant positive correlation between the total publication count and averaged citations per manuscript for affiliations, but not for countries/regions and journals. Chemicals that were frequently mentioned in the keywords of evaluated curcumin publications included curcuminoids, resveratrol, chitosan, flavonoids, quercetin, and polyphenols. The literature mainly focused on curcumin’s effects against cancer, inflammation, and oxidative stress. Cancer types most frequently investigated were breast, colon, colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancers.

Increasing female authorship of foot and ankle academic literature over 24 years

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: Under-representation of women in surgery is commonly attributed to lacking mentorship and exposure in medical school, societal perceptions regarding career priorities, and concerns of “fitting in” in a work culture predominantly comprised of men. Furthermore, this disparity is also reflected in research productivity across academic medicine with male faculty being more likely to publish research compared to female colleagues. In this study we aim to describe the representation and longevity of female investigators among the authors of three foot and ankle research journals from 1993 to 2017. Methods: In this retrospective bibliometric analysis, authors of original research from three prominent foot and ankle research journals (Foot and Ankle International, The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Foot and Ankle Clinics) were extracted from PubMed. For authors with a complete first name listed, gender was determined by matching first name using an online database containing 216,286 distinct names across 79 countries and 89 languages. Proportion of female first, middle, and senior authors were determined over time, as well as total publication count per author. A sub-analysis of authors first publishing between 2007-2012 was followed for 5 years to identify how often authors continued to publish after first publication. Student t-test, chi-square analysis, and Cochran-Armitage trend tests were used to determine significance between groups. Results: From 1993 to 2017, 8,132 original articles were published in three foot and ankle research journals. A total of 6,597 (81.1%) had first names listed, identifying 25,329 total authors, of which 22,961 (90.7%) were successfully matched to a gender. 9,273 unique authors were identified (female: 19.2%). Female representation increased for first and senior authors from 6.5% and 5.9% (1993-1997) to 16.9% and 13.1% (2013-2017, p&lt;0.001). Compared with male authors, female authors published fewer articles (mean: 1.7 vs 2.4, p&lt;0.001). Of 2,691 authors who first published during 2006 to 2011, 369 authors (13.0%; female: 8.1% vs male 15.0%, p&lt;0.001) continued to publish 5 years after their first publication. Female authors were more likely to only publish one article (75.6% vs 69.4%, p=0.016). Conclusion: Female representation in academic foot and ankle research has increased over two-fold over the past 2 decades. Despite these advances, compared to male authors, female authors are less likely to continue publishing 5 years after initial publication, and on average publish fewer articles. Although women are increasingly supported in the surgical workforce, our findings suggest that disparities in academic productivity exist in foot and ankle surgery. Further analysis of barriers to research amongst women may result in more equitable academic advancement and promotion for female foot and ankle surgeons.

Increasing Industry Support Is Associated with Higher Research Productivity in Orthopaedic Surgery.

Orthopaedic surgeons receive a disproportionately small share of funding from the National Institutes of Health, but they receive the largest amount of funding from industry sources. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between payments from industry partners and research productivity among orthopaedic research authors, as well as to identify predictors of high research productivity. United States-based physicians who published an article in 2016 in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery or The American Journal of Sports Medicine were included in this study. These authors were queried in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database (OPD) to determine the amount of industry payments received, and on Scopus, a bibliometric web site, to assess the quantity (total publication count) and quality (Hirsch index [h-index]) of each author's research. Nonparametric testing was used to compare the h-index and the total publication count of authors by payments received and academic position. Multivariate regression was used to identify independent predictors of high research productivity. Of the 766 included authors, 494 (64.5%) received <$10,000 per year, 162 (21.1%) received between $10,000 and $100,000, and 110 (14.4%) received >$100,000 in total payments. The h-index increased significantly from a mean (and standard deviation) of 13.1 ± 12.9 to 20.9 ± 14.4, and to 32.3 ± 16.7, from the lowest to highest payment cohorts, as did total publication count. When authors were stratified by academic position (assistant professor, associate professor, full professor, and nonacademic), those who received more industry payments (>$100,000) had a higher h-index and total publication count at all academic levels relative to lower-earning (<$10,000) authors. Independent predictors of a high h-index included industry payments of between $10,000 and $100,000 (odds ratio [OR], 1.63; p = 0.048), payments of >$100,000 (OR, 5.87), associate professorship (OR, 6.53), full professorship (OR, 33.38), and last authorship (OR, 2.22) (p < 0.001 for all comparisons unless otherwise noted). Although this study does not establish a causal relationship, we identified increasing industry payments as an independent predictor of research productivity among authors at all academic levels who had published peer-reviewed orthopaedic research.

Research productivity of doctor of physical therapy faculty promoted in the southeastern United States

ABSTRACTBackground: Little information exists on the research productivity of successfully promoted tenure-track Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) faculty.Objective: To determine the research productivity that typically results in successful promotion.Design: We collected publicly available curriculum vitae (CVs) from faculty currently in accredited DPT programs and who had been successfully promoted from an institution in the southeastern USA from 2000 through 2016.Total publication count, journal impact factor, funding, citations, and other metrics were analysed from 45 subjects of 22 of the 64 CAPTE-accredited DPT programs in the southeast.Results: None of the studied metrics were normally distributed with time to promotion as determined by a Shapiro-Wilk test. These faculty exhibited a median publication count of 4, range 0 to 43; median of average citation count of 12.4, range 0 to 87.25; median of average journal impact factor of 2.866, range 0 to 6.280; median external funding received of $9910, range $0.00 to $19 543 198; and median author h-index of 3, range 0 to 17. The median number of years before promotion was 6, ranging from 3 to 13 years. Linear regression analysis indicates a poor fit with no significant correlation between years before promotion and any of the studied metrics. No correlation between journal impact factor and number of citations was observed (m = −0.22, p = 0.728, R2 = 0.0003). Prior to promotion 31% (14 of 45) did not receive external funding and 24% (11 of 45) had a 0 h-index. The Carnegie Classification of the institution did not significantly correlate with research productivity metrics in this dataset (p = 0.213).Conclusion: While faculty unsuccessful in promotion were not identifiable using this method, this research can be used by faculty and committees to evaluate research productivity against regional data and promote competitive standards with peer institutions.Abbreviations: CAPTE: Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapist Education; DPT: Doctor of Physical Therapy