Dataset Information

Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health-supported relative citation ratio among American orthopedic spine surgery faculty: A new bibliometric measure of scientific influence.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Publication metrics have been traditionally used to compare research productivity amongst academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics lack field-normalization and are often biased towards time-dependent publication factors. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new, field-normalized, article-level metric, known as the "relative citation ratio" (RCR), that can be used to make accurate self, departmental, and cross-specialty comparisons of research productivity. This study evaluates the use of the RCR amongst academic orthopedic spine surgery faculty and analyzes physician factors associated with RCR values.

Methods

A retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship trained orthopedic spine surgery (OSS) faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopedic surgery residency program. Mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. Student t-tests were used for two-group analyses whereas the analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) was used for between-group comparisons of three or more subgroups. Statistical significance was achieved at P < 0.05.

Results

A total of 502 academic OSS faculty members from 159 institutions were included in the analysis. Overall, OSS faculty were highly productive, with a median RCR of 1.62 (IQR 1.38-2.32) and a median weighted RCR of 68.98 (IQR 21.06-212.70). Advancing academic rank was associated with weighted RCR, career longevity was associated with mean RCR score, and male sex was associated with having increased mean and weighted RCR scores. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value above 1.0.

Conclusions

Academic orthopedic spine surgery faculty produce impactful research as evidenced by the high median RCR relative to the standard value set by the NIH of 1.0. Our data can be used to evaluate research productivity in the orthopedic spine community.

SUBMITTER: Dijanic CN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9344340 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health-supported relative citation ratio among American orthopedic spine surgery faculty: A new bibliometric measure of scientific influence.

Dijanic Christopher N CN Sudah Suleiman Y SY Michel Christopher R CR Smith Tiffany A TA Patankar Aneesh A Manzi Joseph E JE Faccone Robert D RD Kerrigan Daniel J DJ Menendez Mariano E ME Cohen Jason J

North American Spine Society journal 20220714

<h4>Background</h4>Publication metrics have been traditionally used to compare research productivity amongst academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics lack field-normalization and are often biased towards time-dependent publication factors. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new, field-normalized, article-level metric, known as the "relative citation ratio" (RCR), that can be used to make accurate self, departmental, and cross-specialty comparisons of research pro ...[more]

PMID: 35928806

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSpinal surgeries are commonly performed by neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons, with many spine-related articles published by them. However, there has been limited research that directly compares their research achievements. This article conducted a comparative analysis of spine-related research achievements between neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. This study examines differences in productivity and impact on spine-related research between them using these measures, particularly with a novel clustering algorithm.MethodsWe gathered 2148 articles written by neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons from the Web of Science core collections, covering the period from 2013 to 2022. To analyze author collaborations, we employed the follower-leader clustering algorithm (FLCA) and conducted cluster analysis. A 3-part analysis was carried out: cluster analysis of author collaborations; mean citation analysis; and a category, journal, authorship, L-index (CJAL) score based on article category, journal impact factors, authorships, and L-indices. We then utilized R to create visual displays of our findings, including circle bar charts, heatmaps with dendrograms, 4-quadrant radar plots, and forest plots. The mean citations and CJAL scores were compared between neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons.ResultsWhen considering first and corresponding authors, orthopedics authors wrote a greater proportion of the articles in the article collections, accounting for 75% (1600 out of 2148). The CJAL score based on the top 10 units each also favored orthopedic spine surgeons, with 71% (3626 out of 6139) of the total score attributed to them. Using the FLCA, we observed that orthopedic spine surgeons tended to have more collaborations across countries. Additionally, while citation per article favored orthopedic spine surgeons with standard mean difference (= -0.66) and 95%CI: -0.76, -0.56, the mean CJAL score in difference (= 0.34) favored neurosurgeons with 95%CI: 0.24 0.44.ConclusionOrthopedic spine surgeons have a higher number of publications, citations, and CJAL scores in spine research than those in neurosurgeons. Orthopedic spine surgeons tend to have more collaborations and coauthored papers in the field. The study highlights the differences in research productivity and collaboration patterns between the 2 authors in spine research and sheds light on potential contributing factors. The study recommends the use of FLCA for future bibliographical studies.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to analyze bibliometric data from ISI, National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funding data, and faculty size information for Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) member schools during 1997 to 2007 to assess research productivity and impact.MethodsThis study gathered and synthesized 10 metrics for almost all AAMC medical schools(n=123): (1) total number of published articles per medical school, (2) total number of citations to published articles per medical school, (3) average number of citations per article, (4) institutional impact indices, (5) institutional percentages of articles with zero citations, (6) annual average number of faculty per medical school, (7) total amount of NIH funding per medical school, (8) average amount of NIH grant money awarded per faculty member, (9) average number of articles per faculty member, and (10)average number of citations per faculty member. Using principal components analysis, the author calculated the relationships between measures, if they existed.ResultsPrincipal components analysis revealed 3 major clusters of variables that accounted for 91% of the total variance: (1) institutional research productivity, (2) research influence or impact, and (3)individual faculty research productivity. Depending on the variables in each cluster, medical school research may be appropriately evaluated in a more nuanced way. Significant correlations exist between extracted factors, indicating an interrelatedness of all variables. Total NIH funding may relate more strongly to the quality of the research than the quantity of the research. The elimination of medical schools with outliers in 1 or more indicators (n=20)altered the analysis considerably.ConclusionsThough popular, ordinal rankings cannot adequately describe the multidimensional nature of a medical school's research productivity and impact. This study provides statistics that can be used in conjunction with other sound methodologies to provide a more authentic view of a medical school's research. The large variance of the collected data suggests that refining bibliometric data by discipline, peer groups, or journal information may provide a more precise assessment.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health-supported relative citation ratio among American orthopedic spine surgery faculty: A new bibliometric measure of scientific influence.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health-supported relative citation ratio among American orthopedic spine surgery faculty: A new bibliometric measure of scientific influence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets