Impact of fellowship training on research productivity in academic otolaryngology

Eloy, Jean Anderson; Svider, Peter F.; Mauro, Kevin M.; Setzen, Michael; Baredes, Soly

doi:10.1002/lary.23749

Cited by 72 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this certainly is possible, it is important to realize that repeated self-citation would be needed to significantly influence an author's h-index score. 15,16,22 Some also have suggested that being a coauthor on a paper of someone producing significant research output is another route for h inflation, echoing the argument that author order or significance of contributions is not valued with this metric. 5 Although this is certainly a valid point, it should not have a significant effect on an individual's h-index unless the individual is repeatedly a coauthor with someone else who is producing influential research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6,[15][16][17] Our objectives in the present analysis were to further evaluate whether the relationship between h-index and academic rank persisted among faculty within surgical subspecialties described on the Web site of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) (http://www.facs.org/residencysearch/ specialties/index.html) and to compare these results to those of academic otolaryngologists.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons

Svider¹,

Pashkova²,

Choudhry³

et al. 2013

The Laryngoscope

Self Cite

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis The h‐index, a bibliometric indicator that objectively characterizes the impact of an author's scholarship, is an effective tool that may be considered by academic departments for decisions related to hiring and faculty advancement. Our objective was to characterize the scholarly productivity of academic surgeons from different specialties relative to otolaryngologists. Study Design Analysis of a bibliometric database. Methods The h‐indices of 2,429 faculty members within surgical specialties at 20 randomly selected academic institutions were calculated using the Scopus database and were examined to determine relationship with academic rank and comparison among surgical subspecialties. Results The h‐index statistically increased with academic rank. Mean h‐indices were as follows: assistant professor, 4.37 (range, 2.73–6.69); associate professor, 8.70 (6.53–11.02); professor, 16.44 (13.39–20.45); and chairperson, 20.79 (14.81–27.89). Mean increase between academic rank was 5.47, with the largest increase between the levels of associate professor and professor. Further examination demonstrated statistically significant increases through all academic ranks for most, but not all, individual specialties. Urologists, general surgeons, and neurosurgeons had the highest mean h‐indices. Conclusions h‐indices among the different surgical specialties vary and are potentially impacted by the number of practitioners as well as research emphasis within a field. The mean h‐index of academic otolaryngologists falls in the lower values for academic surgeons. Because this metric varies among different fields, it is most relevant for comparison when examining values within a field. H‐indices reliably increase with increasing academic rank through professor and offer a quantifiable and objective alternative to other metrics when evaluating faculty members for academic advancement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons

Svider¹,

Pashkova²,

Choudhry³

et al. 2013

The Laryngoscope

Self Cite

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7,10,[14][15][16][17]29,[35][36][37]41,43,52,53,[57][58][59] The Scopus database (www.scopus.com) was used to calculate this bibliometric for the present analysis, as it has been of value in several prior analyses of the h index. 7,18,47,59 One analysis among neurosurgeons found a high degree of correlation between results from the Scopus database and Google Scholar, another commonly used h index resource.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of plaintiff and defendant expert witness qualification in malpractice litigation in neurological surgery

Eloy¹,

Svider

Folbe

et al. 2014

JNS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object. Expert witnesses provide a valuable societal service, interpreting complex pieces of evidence that may be misunderstood by nonmedical laypersons. The role of medical expert witness testimony and the potential professional repercussions, however, have been controversial in the medical community. The objective of the present analysis was to characterize the expertise of neurological surgeons testifying as expert witnesses in malpractice litigation.Methods. Malpractice litigation involving expert testimony from neurological surgeons was obtained using the WestlawNext legal database. Data pertaining to duration of a surgeon's practice, scholarly impact (as measured by the h index), practice setting, and the frequency with which a surgeon testifies were obtained for these expert witnesses from various online resources including the Scopus database, online medical facility and practice sites, and state medical licensing boards.Results. Neurological surgeons testifying in 326 cases since 2008 averaged over 30 years of experience per person (34.5 years for plaintiff witnesses vs 33.2 for defense witnesses, p = 0.35). Defense witnesses had statistically higher scholarly impact than plaintiff witnesses (h index = 8.76 vs 5.46, p < 0.001). A greater proportion of defense witnesses were involved in academic practice (46.1% vs 24.4%, p < 0.001). Those testifying on behalf of plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times than those testifying on behalf of defendants (20.4% vs 12.6%).Conclusions. Practitioners testifying for either side tend to be very experienced, while those testifying on behalf of defendants have significantly higher scholarly impact and are more likely to practice in an academic setting, potentially indicating a greater level of expertise. Experts for plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times. Surgical societies may need to clarify the necessary qualifications and ethical responsibilities of those who choose to testify.

show abstract

“…These issues and other potential limitations of the h index have been widely reported in the literature. 3,7,9,10,[12][13][14][15]18,23,25,26,[28][29][30]35,[39][40][41] Despite these known limitations, the h index is an objective measure that takes into account the frequency with which a faculty member has had an impact upon scholarly discourse within a field and has been shown in many analyses to have a strong association with academic promotion, receiving external funding, graduate medical education, and a variety of other factors measuring achievement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The h index is a bibliometric whose use has been previously described among academic physicians in neurological surgery as well as in other specialties. 6,7,9,10,12,21,[23][24][25][26][27]29,31,32,[35][36][37][38][39][40] It has been shown to have a strong association with scholarly impact, academic advancement, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding procurement, and other measures of scholarly productivity. It is a widely accessible and easily calculable measure that indicates the degree to which an author is frequently cited on a regular basis, throughout his or her body of work (rather than disproportionate citation of a single work).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing National Institutes of Health funding and scholarly impact in neurological surgery

Svider

Husain

Folbe

et al. 2014

JNS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object Research productivity is increasingly important in academic neurological surgery and can be measured through a variety of methods, such as publications, objective bibliometrics, and securing external grant support. The authors' objectives were to determine whether there is an association between scholarly impact, as measured by the h index, and successful National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding awarded to faculty in neurological surgery departments. Methods Primary investigators receiving National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards from Fiscal Years 2011–2013 were organized by academic rank, terminal degree, and their h index, as calculated from the Scopus database. These data were also obtained for nonfunded faculty from 15 randomly selected departments for comparison, and the average h index for each group was calculated. Results National Institutes of Health–funded faculty had higher average h indices than their nonfunded colleagues (23.6 vs 10.8, p < 0.0001), a finding that persisted upon controlling for academic rank. The mean h index increased with successive academic rank in both cohorts; greater funding totals were seen with successive academic position (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.05). National Institutes of Health–funded MDs had higher h indices than their PhD colleagues (p = 0.04), although funding levels did not differ significantly. There was a trend of increasing h index with higher NIH-funding ranges (p < 0.05). Conclusions The authors' findings demonstrate a strong relationship between scholarly impact and securing NIH funding among faculty in academic neurosurgical departments. Faculty receiving a greater amount of funding tended to have a higher h index. Mean scholarly impact, as measured by the h index, increased with successive academic rank among both NIH-funded and nonfunded faculty, suggesting that this bibliometric may have utility as an adjunct in the academic appointment and promotion process in academic neurological surgery.

show abstract

Impact of fellowship training on research productivity in academic otolaryngology

Cited by 72 publications

References 24 publications

Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons

Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons

Comparison of plaintiff and defendant expert witness qualification in malpractice litigation in neurological surgery

Assessing National Institutes of Health funding and scholarly impact in neurological surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About