Publication Productivity for Academic Ophthalmologists and Academic Ophthalmology Departments in the United States: an Analytical Report
02 November 2015
29 January 2016
31 March 2016 (online)
Purpose Quantifying scholarly output for academic ophthalmologists and academic ophthalmology departments provides a benchmark for academic productivity, offering information about how well an academic department facilitates the scholarly activity of its faculty. Bibliometrics is a statistical method to analyze scientific literature. Among benchmarking methods, the h-index has been the most widely accepted. The h-index samples a researcher's publication quantity while controlling for quality through citation count. The m-quotient adjusts the h-index according to the number of years since the first peer-reviewed publication, allowing for productivity assessments independent of career length. This study utilizes bibliometrics to create profiles for academic ophthalmology in the United States.
Methods Bibliometric profiles were created for 2,824 ophthalmologists from 110 nonmilitary departments. Profiles included the h-index and m-quotient calculated from an online citation database. Comparisons between academic rank, gender, region, and subspecialty were performed. Departments were ranked by the summation as well as the mean of h-indices for each faculty member.
Results The mean h-index and m-quotient were 10.56 ± 11.96 and 0.52 ± 0.44, respectively. Both of these values exhibited a positive relationship with increasing academic rank (p < 0.001). Faculty with subspecialties in ocular oncology, pathology, vitreoretinal disease, neuro-ophthalmology, and uveitis had higher mean h-indices than those in cornea and external disease, glaucoma, pediatrics, oculoplastics, anterior segment, and comprehensive ophthalmology. Males (n = 1,989) demonstrated a significantly higher mean h-index than females (n = 835), 12.12 ± 12.66 versus 6.84 ± 9.07. This difference was still significant after correcting for academic rank (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in m-quotients between genders (p = 0.955). Ranked by summed h-indices, the top five programs for publication productivity in the United States in descending order were Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Miami, Thomas Jefferson University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Wisconsin.
Conclusion This report benchmarks the publication productivity of academic ophthalmologists and academic ophthalmology departments in the United States. These results may serve program development in academic ophthalmology departments and prospective trainees and faculty.
Keywordsbibliometrics - h-index - m-quotient - academic ophthalmology - scholarly impact - departmental rank - Scopus
This article was presented in part as a poster at the American Academy of Ophthalmology Annual Meeting, November 14 to 17, 2015.
- 1 Atasoylu AA, Wright SM, Beasley BW , et al. Promotion criteria for clinician-educators. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18 (9) 711-716
- 2 Bligh J, Brice J. Further insights into the roles of the medical educator: the importance of scholarly management. Acad Med 2009; 84 (8) 1161-1165
- 3 Rezek I, McDonald RJ, Kallmes DF. Is the h-index predictive of greater NIH funding success among academic radiologists?. Acad Radiol 2011; 18 (11) 1337-1340
- 4 Svider PF, Mauro KM, Sanghvi S, Setzen M, Baredes S, Eloy JA. Is NIH funding predictive of greater research productivity and impact among academic otolaryngologists?. Laryngoscope 2013; 123 (1) 118-122
- 5 Carpenter CR, Cone DC, Sarli CC. Using publication metrics to highlight academic productivity and research impact. Acad Emerg Med 2014; 21 (10) 1160-1172
- 6 Venable GT, Khan NR, Taylor DR, Thompson CJ, Michael LM, Klimo Jr P. A correlation between National Institutes of Health funding and bibliometrics in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 2014; 81 (3–4) 468-472
- 7 Ball P. Achievement index climbs the ranks. Nature 2007; 448 (7155) 737
- 8 Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102 (46) 16569-16572
- 9 Pagel PS, Hudetz JA. An analysis of scholarly productivity in United States academic anaesthesiologists by citation bibliometrics. Anaesthesia 2011; 66 (10) 873-878
- 10 Poynard T, Thabut D, Munteanu M, Ratziu V, Benhamou Y, Deckmyn O. Hirsch index and truth survival in clinical research. PLoS ONE 2010; 5 (8) e12044
- 11 Lee J, Kraus KL, Couldwell WT. Use of the h index in neurosurgery. Clinical article. J Neurosurg 2009; 111 (2) 387-392
- 12 Ponce FA, Lozano AM. Academic impact and rankings of American and Canadian neurosurgical departments as assessed using the h index. J Neurosurg 2010; 113 (3) 447-457
- 13 Spearman CM, Quigley MJ, Quigley MR, Wilberger JE. Survey of the h index for all of academic neurosurgery: another power-law phenomenon?. J Neurosurg 2010; 113 (5) 929-933
- 14 Aoun SG, Bendok BR, Rahme RJ, Dacey Jr RG, Batjer HH. Standardizing the evaluation of scientific and academic performance in neurosurgery—critical review of the “h” index and its variants. World Neurosurg 2013; 80 (5) e85-e90
- 15 Khan NR, Thompson CJ, Taylor DR , et al. An analysis of publication productivity for 1225 academic neurosurgeons and 99 departments in the United States. J Neurosurg 2014; 120 (3) 746-755
- 16 Svider PF, Choudhry ZA, Choudhry OJ, Baredes S, Liu JK, Eloy JA. The use of the h-index in academic otolaryngology. Laryngoscope 2013; 123 (1) 103-106
- 17 Quigley MR, Holliday EB, Fuller CD, Choi M, Thomas Jr CR. Distribution of the h-index in radiation oncology conforms to a variation of power law: implications for assessing academic productivity. J Cancer Educ 2012; 27 (3) 463-466
- 18 Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed Digit Libr 2006; 3: 7
- 19 Turaga KK, Gamblin TC. Measuring the surgical academic output of an institution: the “institutional” H-index. J Surg Educ 2012; 69 (4) 499-503
- 20 Benway BM, Kalidas P, Cabello JM, Bhayani SB. Does citation analysis reveal association between h-index and academic rank in urology?. Urology 2009; 74 (1) 30-33
- 21 Svider PF, Lopez SA, Husain Q, Bhagat N, Eloy JA, Langer PD. The association between scholarly impact and National Institutes of Health funding in ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2014; 121 (1) 423-428
- 22 Svider PF, D'Aguillo CM, White PE , et al. Gender differences in successful National Institutes of Health funding in ophthalmology. J Surg Educ 2014; 71 (5) 680-688
- 23 Huang G, Fang CH, Lopez SA, Bhagat N, Langer PD, Eloy JA. Impact of fellowship training on research productivity in academic ophthalmology. J Surg Educ 2015; 72 (3) 410-417
- 24 Svider PF, Pashkova AA, Choudhry Z , et al. Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: an examination of 2429 academic surgeons. Laryngoscope 2013; 123 (4) 884-889
- 25 Lopez SA, Svider PF, Misra P, Bhagat N, Langer PD, Eloy JA. Gender differences in promotion and scholarly impact: an analysis of 1460 academic ophthalmologists. J Surg Educ 2014; 71 (6) 851-859
- 26 Engqvist L, Frommen JG. The h-index and self-citations. Trends Ecol Evol 2008; 23 (5) 250-252
- 27 Egghe L. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 2006; 69: 131-152
- 28 Zhang CT. The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS ONE 2009; 4 (5) e5429
- 29 Taylor DR, Venable GT, Jones GM , et al. Five-year institutional bibliometric profiles for 103 US neurosurgical residency programs. J Neurosurg 2015; 123 (3) 547-560