The impact of a curriculum-based research training program on medical students' research productivity and future research interests: a longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Incorporating scientific research into undergraduate medical education is necessary for the quality of future health care. However, providing rigorous research training to a large number of medical students at one institution remains one of the major challenges. The authors studied the impact of a curriculum-based Research Training Program (RTP) for all undergraduate students at Zhejiang University School of Medicine (ZUSM) on research productivity and future research interests. METHODS: Medical students (n = 2,213) from ZUSM who completed the course of RTP between 2013 and 2020 were studied. The authors measured the academic performance, research publications, and research projects of students across years, and evaluated potential factors that contribute to student research productivity and increased interest in future research. RESULTS: Across the years, there was an increase in the number of student publications, a greater proportion of students with publications, and a greater proportion of projects involving three or more students (P < .01 for all). The academic performance of the course was associated with increased publications (P = .014), whereas overall satisfaction of the course (OR 2.07, 95% CI [1.39, 3.10], P < .001), Skill Composite Score (SCS) (OR 1.70, 95% CI [1.16, 2.50], P = .007), and male gender (OR 1.50, 95% CI [1.06, 2.12], P = .022) were associated with increased future research interests. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the curriculum-based RTP improved students' research productivity, and that overall program satisfaction and self-assessed performance were associated with increased students' intent to participate in future research.

Evaluating Research Activity and NIH-Funding Among Academic Ophthalmologists Using Relative Citation Ratio.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between research activity and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding status of the United States (US) academic ophthalmologists. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of bibliometric data was conducted. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports (rePORTER) website was utilized to identify ophthalmology departments in the US that received NIH funding. Affiliated faculty from these institutions were then identified using NIH rePORTER and institutional websites. H-index was calculated using the Scopus database, and the NIH iCite tool was used to determine the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). The h-index and w-RCR quantified research productivity, while m-RCR measured research impact. RESULTS: Data on 2688 faculty members from 66 departments we re identified, of which 21% were NIH-funded. Faculty members who received NIH-funding had significantly greater research productivity and impact as measured by h-index (32.5 vs 16.6; p < .001), m-RCR (2.2 vs 1.6; p < .001), and w-RCR (147.2 vs 70.1; p < .001) than their non-funded peers. When stratified by academic rank, NIH-funded faculty still had significantly higher h-index (16.1 vs 7.9; p < .001), m-RCR (2.2 vs 1.4; p < .001), and w-RCR (63.2 vs 61.8; p < .001) than non-funded peers. A similar trend was observed among non-tenured faculty members. CONCLUSION: NIH funding is associated with higher research productivity and impact among US academic ophthalmologists as measured by h-index and RCR, which suggests that NIH funding may be a critical factor in enhancing scholarly contributions of ophthalmologists.  These findings underscore the importance of continued investment in NIH funding to foster high-impact research within the field of ophthalmology.

An Online Model for Neurosurgical Research in Developing Countries: A One-Year Experience in Mexico and Latin America.

INTRODUCTION: Mexico is underrepresented in global neurosurgical research. High-income countries represent roughly 10% of the world's population but utilize about 90% of the research funding for medical research, highlighting the need for promoting research initiatives in low- and middle-income countries. We present an online-based research initiative in Mexico that aims to reduce the research gap in neurosurgery. METHODS: Implemented in early 2023, our online-based research initiative included weekly modules covering study types, statistical analysis, meta-analysis, and scientific writing. The first cohort of 22 students completed the 12-week program and then served as tutors for subsequent cohorts. The research model was promoted via word of mouth and social media platforms to medical students, graduates, and specialists across Latin America. Post-program, tutors and the author conducted weekly planning sessions to assist with project planning, analysis, and article writing. RESULTS: From 833 registrations, over 800 students completed at least one training module. The program published seven articles and presented 12 abstracts at major international neurosurgical meetings. We performed a bibliographic analysis in PubMed and found that from 2021-2022, 33,637 neurosurgical articles were published, with 197 involving collaboration from Mexico (0.5%). From 2023-2024, 24,121 articles were published, with 205 involving collaboration from Mexico (0.8%), a significant increase(p<0.001). Our collaboration contributed to 3.4% of these, representing a significant addition in 2023-2024(p=0.026). CONCLUSION: This online-based neurosurgical model contributed to 3.4% of the neurosurgical research productivity in Mexico. Our findings suggest that this model can effectively bridge the research gap and enhance scientific contributions in developing countries.

Publications Among Pain Medicine Fellowship-Trained American Board of Anesthesiology Diplomates.

American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) diplomates who pursue clinical fellowship training in pain medicine may be better suited to lead scholarly projects and serve as first authors of publications in peer-reviewed journals given their additional training and clinical expertise. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether ABA certification in pain medicine is associated with a greater number of peer-reviewed publications. The secondary aim included assessments of whether pain medicine fellowship training is associated with a higher publication rate (publications per year) or publication in a larger number of peer-reviewed journals. A literature search was conducted in December 2023 using the Scopus database for publications related to anesthesiology and pain medicine in the United States between 2013 and 2023. First authors identified through the search were then individually searched within the ABA physician directory. The following data were collected: author name and identification number, year of publication, publication type (article or review), year of primary anesthesiology certification, and year of fellowship, if applicable. This study identified 9,612 publications and 6,924 unique first authors. Pain medicine fellowship training was associated with a statistically significant increase (p-value < 0.001) in the number of publications (0.546; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.386-0.707), publications per year (0.140; 95% CI, 0.121-0.159), and publication in a larger number of peer-reviewed journals (0.256; 95% CI, 0.182-0.330) in regression models adjusted for the number of years from certification. This query of the Scopus database and ABA physician directory indicates that pain medicine fellowship training is associated with statistically significant increases in research productivity, as defined by the number of publications, publications per year, or the number of publications in peer-reviewed journals. However, these increases in research output would not lead to a marked increase in scholarship productivity to justify pursuing a fellowship for this purpose.

Factors influencing research productivity among Syrian medical professionals amidst conflict: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Medical research productivity is globally increasing, with a lagging progress in third-world countries due to significant challenges, including inadequate training and brain drain. Syria had been showing a slow upward trend until the war broke out and severely hindered academic growth and productivity. A deeper understanding of the factors influencing research productivity in this context are fundamental to guide educational policies and resource allocation. Previous cross-sectional studies that evaluated the perspectives of Syrian academics on the issue were limited by the small sample size of published healthcare workers, making it difficult to identify the factors that enabled them to pursue research. METHODS: To address this challenge, we employed a case-control design. We isolated published early-career Syrian healthcare workers and compared their characteristics and perceptions to unpublished matched controls. Authors in the fields of medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy affiliated with any Syrian University were identified through an extensive search of PubMed and Google Scholar.These authors were invited to complete a questionnaire that covered participants' research contributions, alongside their self-assessed knowledge, attitudes, and barriers towards research. The questionnaire was publicly published to recruit an equal sample of matching controls, with half consisting of unpublished researchers and the other half of participants without prior research contributions. RESULTS: Six-hundred-sixteen participants were recruited. Their knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers explained 46% and 34% of the variability in research involvement and publication, respectively (P < 0.001). Getting involved in and publishing research studies associated with higher research-related knowledge and attitudes (P < 0.001). Respondents' assessment of research-related barriers and their academic scores did not differ between cases and controls. Superior research-related knowledge and attitudes were associated with male gender, higher English competency, and better internet connectivity. Meanwhile, extracurricular training and mentors' support were associated with more positive research-related attitudes and less perceived barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Research productivity of medical professionals in Syria exhibits a positive correlation with their knowledge and favorable attitudes towards medical research. Noteworthy, the demographic variations are linked to disparities in research-related knowledge and motivation. In conclusion, these results suggest a potential avenue for enhancement through concentrated efforts on improving extracurricular training interventions and mentors' support.

Does gender predict research awards among prolific suicidologists? A research note.

BACKGROUND: Rewards can both validate and promote the stature of a researcher in their field. Research has been mixed on the role of gender as a predictor of receiving scholarly awards, but much of it lacks control for research excellence, and awards in interdisciplinary associations have been neglected. This study fills these gaps for suicidology. METHODS: Bibliometric data from the Web of Science was utilized for this study. To control for research excellence the analysis is restricted to the 116 most highly prolific researchers, each with 70 or more works published on suicide, from the Web of Science. The research awards in suicidology, given by three different interdisciplinary associations, include the Louis I. Dublin Award, the Morselli Medal, and the Stengel Research Award. The link between gender and receipt of a major award is adjusted for possible mediators including long-term research productivity (h-index), years of experience, and organizational prestige. RESULTS: While the percentage of women winning awards is less than that of men, we find that there is no significant difference between the genders. The quality of research and years of experience predict the receipt of each award. CONCLUSION: Based on a bibliometric analysis, women are not at a disadvantage in receiving research awards in suicidology. These results are consistent with recent research on gender and awards in economics, mathematics, and psychology.

The orthodontic research trends in Arab League Nations from 2002 to 2021: A bibliometric appraisal.

The evaluation of publication growth is a vital indicator to assess any branch of knowledge. The present study aimed to investigate the Scopus-indexed publications on orthodontics produced by the Arab League Nations in the last two decades (2002-2021). Quantitative research method based on bibliometric analysis has been used and the meta-data for the study was retrieved from Elsevier's Scopus database on November 14, 2022. The bibliographic description of all types of literature published on orthodontics from 2002 to 2021 by the authors affiliated with the Arab countries has been downloaded. The selected bibliometric indicators of the data were analyzed by using Microsoft Excel, VOSviewer and SPSS software. The Arab League Nations contributed 5.02 % to global orthodontic research. This segment has demonstrated an amazing escalation of documents from a global perspective between 2002 and 2021 from 1.24 % to 10.94 %. Slightly more than 60 % of documents were published during the last five years of study (2017-2021). The highest number of documents (41 %) was produced by Saudi Arabia, whereas documents contributed by Jordan gained the maximum citation impact. The majority of collaboration was done with the United States, but documents produced in collaboration with Turkey gained the highest citation impact. The paper highlighted that the share of Arab League Nations in orthodontic research has been growing, and Saudi Arabia emerged as the most productive country. The constructive evolution of orthodontic literature with international collaboration display an ambitious approach by Arab countries.

Trajectories of biomedical research leading to Nobel Prize-winning discoveries.

Significant advancements in public health come from scientific discoveries, but more are needed to meet the ever-growing societal needs. Examining the best practices of outstanding scientists may help develop future researchers and lead to more discoveries. This study compared the comprehensive work of 49 Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine from 2000 to 2019 to a matched control of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded biomedical investigators. Our unique data set, comprising 11,737 publications, 571 US patents, and 1693 NIH research awards produced by pre-Nobel laureates, was compared to a similar data set of control researchers. Compared to control researchers, pre-Nobel laureates produce significantly more publications annually (median = 5.66; interquartile range [IQR] = 5.16); significantly fewer coauthors per publication (median = 3.32; IQR = 1.95); consistently higher Journal Impact Factor publications (median = 12.04; IQR = 6.83); and substantially more patents per researcher (median = 5; IQR = 14). Such differences arose from nearly identical cumulative NIH award budgets of pre-Nobel laureates (median $25.3 M) and control researchers. Nobel laureates are neither hyper-prolific (>72 papers per year) nor hyper-funded (>$100 M cumulative). An academic age-specific trajectory graph allows aspiring researchers to compare their productivity and collaboration patterns to those of pre-Nobel laureates.

Evaluating the Factors Influencing Residency Match for Surgical Specialty Applicants and Programs: Challenges and Future Directions.

INTRODUCTION: We aim to evaluate the impact of recent changes in the residency matching process on surgical specialties' applicants and programs to offer recommendations on residency selection and matching processes. METHODS: We utilized five databases while employing a Boolean query to search for studies from 2015 to March 2024. The search selection focused on factors and recent changes influencing residency match results across surgical specialties, including USMLE Step 1 pass/fail, research productivity, interview structure, and preference and geographic signaling. RESULTS: The shift of the USMLE Step 1 to a pass/fail scoring system revealed a consensus among surgical program directors (PDs) and applicants not in favor of the change due to the emphasis on additional application elements. Research productivity was identified as a significant factor, especially in neurosurgery (with an average of 18.3 publications per applicant) and vascular surgery (8.3 publications), indicating a positive correlation between the number of publications and match outcomes. The adoption of virtual interviews has been well-received by both applicants and PDs, leading to an increase in the number of interviews offered and applicants. The implementation of preference and geographic signaling mechanisms has improved interview rates for applicants who utilize them. CONCLUSION: The transition to a pass/fail USMLE Step 1 has raised concerns among surgical specialties, necessitating a greater focus on Step 2 scores and research productivity. Virtual interviews and signaling have improved the accessibility and reach of the residency application process, however, the full impact of these changes on the perception of applicant-program fit remains unclear.

Evaluation of Research Productivity among Academic Glaucoma Specialists Using the Relative Citation Ratio.

PURPOSE: To provide relative citation ratio (RCR) benchmark data for the field of glaucoma. DESIGN: Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis. SUBJECTS: Fellowship-trained glaucoma faculty at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited institutions. METHODS: Glaucoma faculty were individually indexed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) iCite website. Publication count, mean RCR score, and weighted RCR score were collected for each author between May and August 2023 and included PubMed-listed articles from 1980 to 2023. Data were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total number of publications, mean RCR value, and weighted RCR value. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-six academic glaucoma specialists from 113 institutions were indexed. These physicians produced highly impactful research with a median publication count of 13 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-38), median RCR of 1.41 (IQR 0.97-1.98), and median weighted RCR of 16.89 (4.80-63.39). Academic rank, career duration, and having a PhD were associated with increased publication count, mean RCR, and weighted RCR. Publication count and weighted RCR differed significantly by sex; however, no difference was observed with mean RCR. CONCLUSIONS: Current academic glaucoma specialists have high mean RCR values relative to the NIH standard RCR value of 1. This benchmark data serve as a more accurate gauge of research impact within the glaucoma community and can be used to inform self, institutional, and departmental evaluations. Additionally, the mean RCR may provide an accurate metric for quantifying research productivity among historically underrepresented groups that are disadvantaged by time-dependent factors such as number of publications. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Factors Associated with Research Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding in Academic Otology.

OBJECTIVES: Bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index (h-index) and the more recently developed relative citation ratio (RCR), are utilized to evaluate research productivity. Our study evaluates demographics, research productivity, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in academic otology. METHODS: Academic otologists were identified, and their demographics were collected using institutional faculty profiles (N = 265). Funding data were obtained using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports Database. The h-index was calculated using Scopus and mean (m-RCR) and weighted RCR (w-RCR) were calculated using the NIH iCite tool. RESULTS: H-index (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97-2.31, p = 0.069) or w-RCR (aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.231), was associated with receiving NIH funding. Men had greater h-index (16 vs. 9, p < 0.001) and w-RCR (51.8 vs. 23.0, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (1.3 vs. 1.3, p = 0.269) than women. Higher academic rank was associated with greater h-index and w-RCR (p < 0.001). Among assistant professors, men had greater h-index than women (9.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.025). At career duration 11-20 years, men had greater h-index (14.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.009) and w-RCR (52.7 vs. 25.8, p = 0.022) than women. CONCLUSION: The h-index has a strong relationship with NIH funding in academic otology. Similar h-index, m-RCR, and w-RCR between men and women across most academic ranks and career durations suggests production of similarly impactful research. The m-RCR may correct some deficiencies of time-dependent bibliometrics and its consideration in academic promotion and research funding allocation may promote representation of women in otology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 134:3786-3794, 2024.

Correlation between research productivity during and after orthopaedic surgery training.

Background: Research experience is mandatory for all Orthopaedic Surgery residency programs. Although the allocation of required protected time and resources varies from program to program, the underlying importance of research remains consistent with mutual benefit to both residents and the program and faculty. Authorship and publications have become the standard metric used to evaluate academic success. This study aimed to determine if there is a correlation between the research productivity of Orthopaedic Surgery trainees and their subsequent research productivity as attending Orthopaedic Surgeons. Methods: Using the University of Mississippi Orthopaedic Residency Program Research Productivity Rank List, 30 different Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Programs were analyzed for the names of every graduating surgeon in their 2013 class. PubMed Central was used to screen all 156 physicians and collect all publications produced by them between 2008 and August 2022. Results were separated into two categories: Publications during training and Publications post-training. Results: As defined above, 156 Surgeons were analyzed for publications during training and post-training. The mean number of publications was 7.02 ± 17.819 post-training vs. 2.47 ± 4.313 during training, P < 0.001. The range of publication post-training was 0-124 vs. 0-30 during training. Pearson correlation between the two groups resulted in a value of 0.654, P < 0.001. Conclusion: Higher research productivity while training correlates to higher productivity post-training, but overall Orthopaedic surgeons produce more research after training than during. With the growing importance of research, more mentorship, time, and resources must be dedicated to research to instill and foster greater participation while in training.

What factors are associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Research evidence to inform primary care policy and practice is essential for building high-performing primary care systems. Nevertheless, research output relating to primary care remains low worldwide. This study describes the factors associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers. METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive key informant study approach was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with twenty-three primary care researchers across Canada. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three primary care researchers participated in the study. An interplay of personal (psychological characteristics, gender, race, parenthood, education, spousal occupation, and support), professional (mentorship before appointment, national collaborations, type of research, career length), institutional (leadership, culture, resources, protected time, mentorship, type), and system (funding, systematic bias, environment, international collaborations, research data infrastructure) factors were perceived to be associated with research productivity. Research institutes and mentors facilitated collaborations, and mentors and type of research enabled funding success. Jurisdictions with fewer primary care researchers had more national collaborations but fewer funding opportunities. The combination of institutional, professional, and system factors were barriers to the research productivity of female and/or racialized researchers. CONCLUSIONS: This study illuminates the intersecting and multifaceted influences on the research productivity of primary care researchers. By exploring individual, professional, institutional, and systemic factors, we underscore the pivotal role of diverse elements in shaping RP. Understanding these intricate influencers is imperative for tailored, evidence-based interventions and policies at the level of academic institutions and funding agencies to optimize resources, promote fair evaluation metrics, and cultivate inclusive environments conducive to diverse research pursuits within the PC discipline in Canada.

Rapid increase in departmental scholarly activity independent of residents demonstrates reproducibility and success of intensive research initiative in neurosurgery department.

BACKGROUND: Neurological surgery remains one of the most competitive specialties with a match rate of <70%. Historically, medical student performance was gauged through the USMLE Step 1. However, with the recent exam score change, metrics such as recommendation letters, research, and clerkship grades carry increased importance. Research experiences vary greatly between institutions and medical students depend on faculty/resident mentorship in order to facilitate scholarly activity. We previously reported our 2-year intensive research initiative (IRI) in a neurosurgery program. Here we report successful implementation of the IRI in a disparate setting, a department devoid of residents, and demonstrate the IRI's reproducibility with non-resident learners. MATERIALS & METHODS: We compared retrospective data from 2007 to 2020 with the IRI's results during the 2-year study period (July 2020-July 2022). RESULTS: The IRI resulted in a rapid exponential increase in publications, with medical student led peer-reviewed publications (PRPs) increasing 1000% and pre-residency fellow (PRF) PRPs increasing by 4900%. Learner involvement on PRPs pre-IRI was 31%, increasing to 72% post-IRI implementation. CONCLUSIONS: We present the IRI's success increasing academic productivity despite utilizing only non-resident learners. Students underrepresented in medicine and those at non-tier 1 institutions receive unequal research and clinical opportunities, therefore, prioritizing and providing sufficient opportunities/mentorship is crucial in their success in matching into competitive specialties. Our IRI allows for early faculty/resident student mentorship and gives students more flexibility as it allows medical students at varying stages to participate in research with no set time frame.

Impact of Early Research Productivity on Future Academic Output Among Head and Neck Fellows.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of pre-fellowship publications on future research productivity and career placement among head and neck (H&N) surgery fellowship graduates. METHODS: H&N surgery fellowship graduates between 2014 and 2022 were identified from publicly available data. Timing of fellowship graduation, number of publications during each stage of education and training, and number of first authorship publications were analyzed for association with scholarly productivity and academic career placement. RESULTS: In our analysis of 409 H&N fellowship graduates, there was a strong positive correlation between the year of fellowship graduation and the average number of publications in residency (R2 = 0.82) and fellowship (R2 = 0.79). Graduates producing more than the average of 2.37 publications prior to residency had a significantly higher average number of publications during residency and fellowship compared to those who published below average (p < 0.001). A higher number of publications prior to and during residency were both independently associated with a higher likelihood of academic career placement (p = 0.015 and p = 0.002, respectively). More first-author publications prior to residency were associated with a higher number of publications during residency and fellowship (p = 0.015). In sub-analyses, gender did not impact the average number of publications during residency and fellowship. Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly impact the average number of publications during the fellowship when comparing the classes of 2020-2022 to 2017-2019. CONCLUSION: Research productivity among H&N fellowship graduates has increased in recent years. Research productivity in medical school and residency is associated with scholarly output in later stages of training and academic career placement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 134:3165-3169, 2024.

The Relative Citation Ratio: An Impartial Assessment of Productivity in Academic Otolaryngologists.

OBJECTIVES: Quantification of academic productivity relies on bibliometric measurements, such as the Hirsch index (h-index). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently developed the relative citation ratio (RCR), an article-level, citation-driven metric that compares researchers with others within their respective fields. Our study is the first to compare the usage of RCR in academic otolaryngology. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Database Review. METHODS: Academic otolaryngology residency programs were identified using the 2022 Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Demographic and training data were collected for surgeons using institutional websites. RCR was calculated using the NIH iCite tool, and h-index was calculated using Scopus. Mean RCR (m-RCR) is the average score of the author's articles. Weighted RCR (w-RCR) is the sum of all article scores. These derivatives are a measure of impact and output, respectively. The career duration of a physician was categorized into the following cohorts: 0-10, 11-20, 21-30, and 31+ years. RESULTS: A total of 1949 academic otolaryngologists were identified. Men had higher h-indices and w-RCRs than women (both p less than 0.001). m-RCR was not different between genders (p = 0.083). There was a difference in h-index and w-RCR (both p less than 0.001) among the career duration cohorts, but there was no difference in m-RCR among the cohorts (p = 0.416). The faculty rank professor was the greatest for all metrics (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Critics of the h-index argue that it is reflective of the time a researcher has spent in the field, instead of impact. The RCR may reduce historic bias against women and younger otolaryngologists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 134:592-599, 2024.

Perceived research productivity of women in higher education: An investigation of the impact of COVID-19.

This study focuses on the predictors of women academics' perceived research productivity during the pandemic in Türkiye, by taking the changes in paid and unpaid workload alongside the felt pressure concerning productivity into consideration. Predicting the odds to report an above the mean level of decrease in perceived research productivity, unlike expected, increased housework time and administrative workload presented no statistically significant effect. On the other hand, extended care responsibilities (including but not limited to childcare) and felt pressure concerning research performance during the pandemic strongly predicted a high level of reported decrease in research productivity. Findings highlight that institutional care support mechanisms should be among the primary concerns since the pandemic has made the already existing gender inequalities in academia more visible in terms of the challenges women face in balancing paid and unpaid work. In addition, as excess pressure felt by women academics regarding research performance is linked to a decline in reported productivity, creating a compassionate environment in academia not only in unprecedented circumstances but at all times needs to be priority.

Demographics and Research Activity Among 2023 Academic Glaucoma Specialists.

PURPOSE: To characterize demographics, academic characteristics, and research activity of academic glaucoma specialists. METHODS: Faculty demographic and academic data were recorded for glaucoma specialist faculty from 99 United States ophthalmology residency programs using institutional websites, Doximity, and LinkedIn. H-index was calculated using Scopus. Mean and weighted relative citation ratio (RCR), measuring research impact and productivity, respectively, was determined with the National Institute of Health iCite tool. RESULTS: Most academic glaucoma specialists were men (0.61), located in the Southern United States (0.316), and in practice for less than or equal to 10 years in 2023 (0.324). Twenty-six percent had additional professional degrees, and 11% completed fellowship training in addition to clinical glaucoma. Assistant professor was the most common academic appointment (0.479), and almost a quarter (0.23) had additional positions. Mean h-index (13.3), mean-RCR (1.76), and weighted-RCR (84.0) were consistent with high research productivity and impact. Gender comparison found that men had significantly higher h-index (p < .001), m-RCR (p = .007), w-RCR (p < .001) as compared to women. H-index (p < .001; p < .001; p < .001), m-RCR (p = .006; p < .001; p < .001), and w-RCR (p < .001; p < .001; p < .001) also increased with career duration, academic position, and additional academic appointments, respectively. Additional training was associated with higher h-index (p = .023) and w-RCR (p = .012), but not m-RCR (p = .699). CONCLUSION: Higher research activity is significantly associated with higher departmental positions and additional academic appointments. This illustrates the importance of research contributions for academic promotion. Variations in research activity by gender distribution may therefore affect opportunities for career advancement.