Objective. To examine whether there are gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments, as measured by academic rank and the h-index, a published, objective measure of research contributions that quantifies the number and significance of papers published by a given author.Study Design and Setting. Analysis of bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists.Methods. Faculty listings from academic otolaryngology departments were used to determine academic rank and gender. The Scopus database was used to determine h-index and publication range (in years) of these faculty members. In addition, 20 randomly chosen institutions were used to compare academic otolaryngologists to faculty members in other surgical specialties.Results. Mean h-indices increased through the rank of professor. Among academic otolaryngologists, men had significantly higher h-indices than women, a finding also noted on examination of faculty members from other specialties. Men had higher research productivity rates at earlier points in their career than women did. The productivity rates of women increased and equaled or surpassed those of men later in their careers. Men had higher absolute h-index values at junior academic ranks. Women academic otolaryngologists of senior rank had higher absolute h-indices than their male counterparts.Conclusions. The h-index measures research significance in an objective manner and indicates that although men have higher overall research productivity in academic otolaryngology, women demonstrate a different productivity curve. Women produce less research output earlier in their careers than men do, but at senior levels, they equal or exceed the research productivity of men. Keywordsgender, gender disparity, h-index, academic promotion, academic productivity, faculty productivity, surgical faculty productivity, academic physician scientific productivity, academic rank determination, academic rank in surgical specialties Received July 13, 2012; revised September 19, 2012; accepted October 8, 2012. T he proportion of women pursuing careers in medicine has dramatically increased, as women now comprise nearly half of US medical students.1-6 Although this trend is consistent with societal strides in gender equality, further examination among specific medical disciplines reveals notable demographic differences. Women have disproportionately entered primary care and nonsurgical careers, while surgical specialties have traditionally had difficulty recruiting and retaining female trainees. 3,[7][8][9] In addition, women are underrepresented in academic practice

Objectives/Hypothesis: The h-index is an accurate and reliable indicator of scholarly productivity that takes into account relevance, significance, and influence of research contributions. As such, it is an effective, objective bibliometric that can be used to evaluate academic otolaryngologists for decisions regarding appointment and advancement. In this study, we evaluate the impact of NIH funding on scholarly productivity in otolaryngology.Study Design: Analysis of bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists. Methods: Funding data for the 20 otolaryngology departments with the largest aggregate total of NIH grants for the fiscal years (FY) 2011 and 2012 was obtained using the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports (RePORTER) Database. H-indices were calculated using the Scopus online database, and then compared to funding data at both the departmental and individual level.Results: Faculty members in otolaryngology departments who received NIH funding had significantly greater research productivity and impact, as measured by the h-index, than their nonfunded peers. H-indices increased with greater NIH funding levels, and investigators with MD degrees tended to have higher mean NIH funding levels than those with PhDs. While there was no correlation between average h-index and NIH funding totals at the level of departments, there was greater correlation upon examination of NIH funding levels of individual investigators.Conclusions: The h-index has a strong relationship with, and may be predictive of, grant awards of NIH-funded faculty members in otolaryngology departments. This bibliometric may be useful in decisions regarding appointment and advancement of faculty members within academic otolaryngology departments.

Female academic physicians have decreased research productivity relative to men, which may be one factor contributing to their underrepresentation at the level of professor and departmental leader relative to their proportions in junior academic ranks. Potential explanations may include fewer woman physicians in the age groups during which higher academic ranks are attained, greater family responsibilities, and greater involvement in clinical service and educational contributions.

Fellowship-trained otolaryngologists had higher h-indices, and faculty members trained in the subspecialties with the highest research productivity were disproportionately represented in positions of leadership within academic otolaryngology, probably reflecting the importance of research contributions in the academic advancement process, although other factors, such as educational contributions and clinical performance, may also be important factors.

There is an association among the h-index, NIH funding and academic rank. The h-index is a reliable method of assessing the impact of scholarly contributions toward the discourse in academic urology. It may be used as an adjunct for evaluating the scholarly productivity of academic urologists.

Gender disparities in academic rank and scholarly productivity exist most notably in the Northeast, where women in otolaryngology are most underrepresented relative to men at senior academic ranks and in scholarly productivity.

Regional disparities in transsphenoidal practice patterns exist in the United States. Although the microscopic approach is still more common overall, there has been an evolving shift toward endoscopic TSAs in the last decade.

Collaboration with individuals who do not have doctoral-level degrees, presumably medical students, has a strong association with scholarly impact among researchers publishing in the Laryngoscope and IFAR. Research mentorship of medical students interested in otolaryngology may allow a physician-scientist to evaluate the students' effectiveness and functioning in a team setting, a critical component of success in residency training, and may have beneficial effects on research productivity for the senior author.