The Impact of Hospital/University Affiliation on Research Productivity Among US-Based Authors in the Fields of Trauma, Surgical Critical Care, Acute Care, and Emergency General Surgery

Abstract

Background Research productivity is critical to academic surgery and essential for advancing surgical knowledge and evidence-based practice. We aim to determine if surgeon affiliation with top US universities/hospitals (TOPS) is associated with increased research productivity measured by numbers of peer-reviewed publications in PubMed (PMIDs). Methods A bibliometric analysis was performed for PMIDs. Affiliated authors who published in trauma surgery (TS), surgical critical care (SCC), acute care surgery (ACS), and emergency general surgery (EGS) were evaluated for publications between 2015 and 2019, and lifetime productivity. Our analysis included 3443 authors from 443 different institutions. Our main outcome was PMIDs of first author (FA) and senior author (SA) in each field (2015-2019) and total lifetime publications. Results Significant differences exist between PMIDs from TOPS vs non-TOPS in FA-TS (1.34 vs 1.23, P = .001), SA-TS (1.71 vs 1.46, P < .001), total SA-PMIDs (44.10 vs 26.61, P < .001), and SA-lifetime PMIDs (90.55 vs 59.03, P < .001). There were no significant differences in PMIDs for FA or SA-SCC, FA or SA-ACS, FA or SA-EGS, FA-total PMIDs 2015-2019, or FA-lifetime PMIDs ( P > .05 for all). Conclusion There were significantly higher TS PMIDs among FAs and SAs affiliated with top US institutions in 2015-2019, along with higher total PMIDs (2015-2019) and lifetime PMIDs. These findings are of significance to future graduate medical applicants and academic surgeons who need to make decisions about training and future career opportunities.

Surgical research in Colombia part 1: Scientific and academic productivity of the Colombian research groups in surgery

“…There is really no similar evidence in the region with which these results can be contrasted. However, compared to the productivity reported by authors from other continents, the disadvantage and fragmentation of the Colombian surgical scientific production is clearly observed [ [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] ]. Many research groups can be multidisciplinary, where they research on different branches of medical science.…”

“…Among the bibliometric studies that have analyzed the scientific production of research in Colombian surgery is the one conducted by Sánchez-Jaramillo et al [ 22 ], who studied 20 years of publications on research in surgical education, finding only 63 studies, approximately 40% were published in journals not indexed in medium-high quality bases (ISI/SCOPUS), 20% in Q1 journals, and have an average of 10 citations per article [ 22 ]. Unlike what has been investigated in Colombia, other countries, mainly the United States, have shown a much higher productivity and better quality, represented by a higher percentage of participation in Q1-Q2 journals, better metrics and, in general, being the department with the highest contribution to surgery [ 22 , 24 ].…”

“…Among the bibliometric studies that have analyzed the scientific production of research in Colombian surgery is the one conducted by Sánchez-Jaramillo et al [ 22 ], who studied 20 years of publications on research in surgical education, finding only 63 studies, approximately 40% were published in journals not indexed in medium-high quality bases (ISI/SCOPUS), 20% in Q1 journals, and have an average of 10 citations per article [ 22 ]. Unlike what has been investigated in Colombia, other countries, mainly the United States, have shown a much higher productivity and better quality, represented by a higher percentage of participation in Q1-Q2 journals, better metrics and, in general, being the department with the highest contribution to surgery [ 22 , 24 ]. Fortunately, evidence affirms that progress in global surgery productivity is substantial in low- and middle-income countries compared to high-income countries (71.5% vs. 28.5%, p < 0.001), with a moderate proportion of collaboration between these two groups of countries (32.9%), regardless of surgical subspecialty [ 25 ], which must continue to improve to meet the goals of global surgery.…”

Publication Times in Ophthalmology Journals: The Story of Accepted Manuscripts

“…Based on the presented results, it was impossible to conclude whether the author’s specialty influenced articles publication times. The previous investigation demonstrated that authors' affiliation had an impact on research productivity [ 24 ]. Other studies revealed no or weak associations with the publication times and the author’s specialty [ 1 , 25 ].…”

A roadmap for research in medical physics via academic medical centers: The DIVERT Model

“…[7][8][9] At academic medical centers, which have a research mandate, it is resolved by the leadership helping to define their balance point. 10 At nonacademic medical centers, there is less debate: these are places where clinical work takes precedence, and research is likely not supported as it is arguably not the mission of the institution. Successful research programs, usually associated with the Carnegie classification of Very High-Research Activity Universities, have major laboratory infrastructures, research support, and a commensurate expectation that these appointments lead to scholarship, successes in innovation, publication, and grant funding.…”