Premium
Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons
Author(s) -
Svider Peter F.,
Pashkova Anna A.,
Choudhry Zaid,
Agarwal Nitin,
Kovalerchik Olga,
Baredes Soly,
Liu James K.,
Eloy Jean Anderson
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
the laryngoscope
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.181
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1531-4995
pISSN - 0023-852X
DOI - 10.1002/lary.23951
Subject(s) - scopus , scholarship , rank (graph theory) , index (typography) , metric (unit) , medicine , bibliometrics , medical education , psychology , library science , medline , political science , mathematics , computer science , engineering , operations management , combinatorics , world wide web , law
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.