Is NIH funding predictive of greater research productivity and impact among academic otolaryngologists?

Abstract

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.

Academic characteristics for successful national institutes of health funding in dermatology

“…This trend contradicts what has been found in some other specialties such as otolaryngology [5]. One reason for this may be that more females choose to enter nonsurgical fields such as dermatology, instead of surgical specialties, which often have more departments invest NIH funding into long-term development.…”

“…Several studies have used NIH funding as a marker of success [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. NIH funding strengthens academic departments by allowing the department to invest funding into long-term development, hire extra faculty, and increase research productivity.…”

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

“…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.…”

“…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).…”

“…7,11,19,22,32,39,42 Nonetheless, there is little available evidence that this organization takes into account the scholarly impact of applicants with objective bibliometrics that assess scholarly relevance, such as the h index. 7,11,39 The objective of this present analysis was to determine whether there is an association between scholarly impact, as measured by the h index, and successful NIH grant funding awarded to faculty in neurological surgery departments.…”