Industry Funding Is Correlated With Publication Productivity of US Academic Radiation Oncologists

Zaorsky, Nicholas G.; Ahmed, Awad A.; Zhu, Junjia; Yoo, Stella K.; Fuller, Clifton D.; Thomas, Charles R.; Choi, Mehee; Holliday, Emma B.

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2018.07.024

Cited by 13 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…28,29 A previous report on academic radiation oncologists demonstrated that industry payments were significantly associated with H-index. 30 Our finding was in-line with studies by Eloy et al., demonstrating positive associations between industry contributions and scholarly impact among academic otolaryngologists and neurosurgeons. 18,19 Of note, this association is likely multi-faceted and not necessarily a causal one.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…1,32 Additionally, the total number of publications or H-index may not be the best measure for research productivity, since obtaining research grants, longitudinal basic science projects, or higher impact research are also important measures of scholarly productivity, but not accounted for in this manuscript. Furthermore, the H-index is not the solitary measure of research productivity, as other similar indices have been utilized for similar purposes before, namely m-index, 30 Relative Citation Ratio, 33 and Radicchi index. 34 This is in addition to the fact that Scopus and/or other sources for H-index (e.g., Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate) can provide conflicting results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Academic Rhinologists’ Online Rating and Perception, Scholarly Productivity, and Industry Payments

Goshtasbi

Lehrich

Abouzari

et al. 2020

Am J Rhinol�Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The emergence of popular online rating websites, social media platforms, and public databases for industry payments and scholarly outputs provide a complete physician online presence which may guide choice and satisfaction. Methods Websites of all U.S. otolaryngology academic institutions were queried for fellowship-trained rhinologists. Additional well-known and academically active rhinologists were identified by the senior author. Online ratings and comments were collected from Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, and RateMD websites, and weighted rating scores (RS) were calculated on a 1–5 scale. Results A total of 210 rhinologists with 16 ± 9 years of practice were included, where 6901 online ratings (33 ± 47 per rhinologist) provided an average RS of 4.3 ± 0.6. RS was not different according to gender ( p = 0.58), geographic quartile ( p = 0.48), social media presence ( p = 0.41), or attending top-ranked medical school ( p = 0.86) or residency programs ( p = 0.89). Years of practice negatively correlated with RS (R = –0.22, p<0.01), and academic ranking significantly influenced RS, with professors, associate professors, and assistant professors scoring 4.1 ± 0.6, 4.3 ± 0.4, and 4.4 ± 0.6, respectively ( p = 0.03). Of the 3,304 narrative comments analyzed (3.1 ± 11.6 per rhinologist), 76% (positive) and 7% (negative) had elements of clinical knowledge/outcomes, 56% (positive) and 7% (negative) of communication/bedside manner, and 9% (positive) and 7% (negative) of office staff, cost, and wait-time. All negative comment categories had moderate negative correlation with RS, while positive comment categories regarding knowledge/competence and bedside manner weakly correlated with higher RS. Number of publications (48 ± 54) positively correlated with 2018 industry payments ($11,384 ± $19,025) among those receiving industry compensation >$300 (n = 113). Attending a top-ranked medical school was associated with higher industry payments ( p<0.01) and H-index ( p = 0.02). Conclusion Academic rhinologists’ online RS was not associated with gender, geographic location, or attending a top-ranked training program, and their scholarly productivity was significantly correlated with total industry payments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Rhinologists’ Online Rating and Perception, Scholarly Productivity, and Industry Payments

Goshtasbi

Lehrich

Abouzari

et al. 2020

Am J Rhinol�Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Hottenrott and Lawson (2017) found that research grants were generally associated with higher research outcomes. Zaorsky et al. (2019) found an association between disclosed payment from the industry and increased individual research productivity metrics.…”

Section: Theoretical Framework and Research Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Similarly, Hottenrott and Lawson (2017) found that research grants were generally associated with higher research outcomes. Zaorsky et al (2019) found an association between disclosed payment from the industry and increased individual research productivity metrics. Pitt et al (2017) found that the combination of increased awareness of peers' academic productivity and a weighted lottery financial incentive appeared to be a useful model for stimulating academic productivity in early-career faculty.…”

Section: Financial Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effects of institutional policies and characteristics on research productivity at Vietnam science and technology universities

Nguyen

Dao

2021

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of institutional research promoting policies and organizational characteristics on research productivity in Vietnam universities. The authors employed a dataset surveying faculty staff from 115 universities across the country and used multivariate data analysis to analyse data and test hypotheses. It was found that institutional characteristics such as size, time in operation and advantageous location were positively associated with research productivity. Specifically, universities located in the big cities with longer time in operation and larger size had higher level of international publication. Institutional policies such as management and infrastructure had a positive impact on research productivity while human resource policies had a positive impact on faculty research outcomes. The study also provided some suggestions to promote research productivity of Vietnam universities.

show abstract

“…Second, this sample focused on US medical school faculty submitting their first R01 application and cannot be generalized to the entire NIH-funded biomedical research workforce or to investigators outside of the United States. Third, this analysis does not include prior history of foundation or industry funding, which may influence the probability of an application being discussed or funded [ 40 , 41 ]. Finally, some applicants may have used the feedback on their initial review to scale back and refine their original R01 application into small grant mechanisms (i.e., R21, R03, etc.).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Downstream funding success of early career researchers for resubmitted versus new applications: A matched cohort

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Early career researchers face a hypercompetitive funding environment. To help identify effective intervention strategies for early career researchers, we examined whether first-time NIH R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful at obtaining any R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than original, unfunded applicants who submitted new NIH applications, and we examined whether underrepresented minority (URM) applicants differentially benefited from resubmission. Our observational study is consistent with an NIH working group’s recommendations to develop interventions to encourage resubmission. Methods and findings First-time applicants with US medical school academic faculty appointments who submitted an unfunded R01 application between 2000–2014 yielded 4,789 discussed and 7,019 not discussed applications. We then created comparable groups of first-time R01 applicants (resubmitted original R01 application or submitted new NIH applications) using optimal full matching that included applicant and application characteristics. Primary and subgroup analyses used generalized mixed models with obtaining any NIH R01 funding within 3 and 5 years as the two outcomes. A gamma sensitivity analysis was performed. URM applicants represented 11% and 12% of discussed and not discussed applications, respectively. First-time R01 applicants resubmitting their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful obtaining R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than applicants submitting new applications—for both discussed and not discussed applications: discussed within 3 years (OR 4.17 [95 CI 3.53, 4.93]) and 5 years (3.33 [2.82–3.92]); and not discussed within 3 years (2.81 [2.52, 3.13]) and 5 years (2.47 [2.22–2.74]). URM applicants additionally benefited within 5 years for not discussed applications. Conclusions Encouraging early career researchers applying as faculty at a school of medicine to resubmit R01 applications is a promising potential modifiable factor and intervention strategy. First-time R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application had log-odds of obtaining downstream R01 funding within 3 and 5 years 2–4 times higher than applicants who did not resubmit their original application and submitted new NIH applications instead. Findings held for both discussed and not discussed applications.

show abstract

Industry Funding Is Correlated With Publication Productivity of US Academic Radiation Oncologists

Cited by 13 publications

References 23 publications

Academic Rhinologists’ Online Rating and Perception, Scholarly Productivity, and Industry Payments

Academic Rhinologists’ Online Rating and Perception, Scholarly Productivity, and Industry Payments

Effects of institutional policies and characteristics on research productivity at Vietnam science and technology universities

Downstream funding success of early career researchers for resubmitted versus new applications: A matched cohort

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About