Predicting academic productivity among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons fellowship faculty from publications acquired before and during surgical training.

BACKGROUND: Orthopedic residency and fellowship applicants with a strong research record are highly valued for their potential in continuing academic excellence. Despite this, the association between research productivity during training and future academic productivity as an attending orthopedic surgeon is not well-established. We assess the effects of research output during different periods of surgical training as well as residency location on long-term academic productivity as an attending shoulder and elbow surgeon. METHODS: A search of the 2022-2023 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Fellowship Directory was conducted to identify a list of orthopedic shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty members. Each surgeon's residency, fellowship and current institution of practice were determined and stratified by geographic location. Total publication counts acquired before residency, during residency, during fellowship, and after fellowship were collected for each faculty member. Attending publication rates and H-indices were calculated. A multivariate linear regression model was created, and significance was set at a P value <.05. RESULTS: A total of 149 shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty members representing 34 fellowship programs were identified. The average number of total publications per surgeon was 88.8 ± 102. The average attending publication rate was 5.29 ± 6.89 publications per year. The average H-index for included surgeons was 27.8 ± 24.4. The number of publications acquired before residency (ß = 0.293; P < .001), during residency (ß = 0.110; P = .025) and during fellowship (ß = 0.593; P < .001) were significantly associated with an increased attending publication rate, but no association was observed with the H-index [before residency (ß = -0.221; P = .574), during residency (ß = 0.045; P = .866), during fellowship (ß = 0.198; P = .678)]. There were no significant differences in total publication count (P = .397), attending publication rate (P = .237), or H-index (P = .364) based on location of residency training. DISCUSSION: Research output before and during surgical training is predictive of continued academic productivity as a shoulder and elbow surgeon. In particular, greater productivity during surgical fellowship was most predictive of academic output as an attending. While long-term academic productivity does not seem to be influenced by the geographic location of residency training, attending surgeons practicing in the Midwest had significantly greater total publication counts and H-indices but similar annual publication rates.

Journal metrics of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals - A cross-sectional, comparative study.

PURPOSE: In academic publishing, research metrics play a crucial role in assessing the scientific impact and performance of the published literature, as well as of the journals in which they are published. Several journal-level metrics (JLM) such as the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document are considered crucial indicators of the importance and reputation of the journals. We hypothesize that journals in the field of Medicine receive more citations than those in Surgical journals like Orthopaedic surgery, and hence have better JLM. This study aims to to assess and compare the JLM of Medical and Surgical journals between two time zones 2017-2019 vs. 2020-2022, i.e., pre and post-COVID-19 pandemic period. METHODS: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals was undertaken based on traditional JLM, using the SCImago database from 2017 to 2022. Our analysis focused on identifying trends in the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document. RESULTS: Overall Medical journals were found to have higher JLM than the Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. The h-index of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were comparable between the two periods (pre and -post-COVID-19 pandemic); Total Cites (3 years), total documents (2017), total documents (3 years), total references, and citable documents (3 years) of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were significantly higher in the period 2020-2022. CONCLUSION: There has been a steady increase in the number of publications from post COVID-19 period. Medical journals have higher JLM than Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am), Annals of Surgery and Diabetes Care were the most published journals in Orthopaedics, General Surgery and Medicine-related topics respectively.

The 100 Leading Contributors to English-Language Gerontological Journals: An International Study of Scholarly Impact.

The two aims of this study were to: 1) identify the 100 most impactful contributors to English-language gerontological journals, and 2) map their respective disciplinary affiliations to help illuminate the perspectives shaping gerontological discourse. Toward that end, we conducted a secondary data analysis of a publicly available database of the world's leading scientists. After extracting all scientists in the gerontological category, we rank ordered them according to a composite measure of scholarly impact that controls for self-citations and author order while also calculating other bibliometric statistics. Disciplinary affiliations were assigned based upon the Classification of Instructional Programs codes developed by the National Center for Education Statistics at the United States Department of Education. The results reveal the mean contributor to the gerontological literature published 241.15 (SD = 203.95) papers and - after correcting for self-citations - had an h-index of 50.05 (SD = 25.00), and an hm-index 23.67 (SD = 7.50). A diverse array of professional affiliations characterized the contributors with a plurality being located in the health professions category, followed by the biological and biomedical science, and social sciences categories. The results reveal that gerontology is home to some of the world's leading scientists. Leveraging their expertise can help advance the field's collective knowledge development.

The 'scientist', the 'analyst' and the 'novelist': science or metrics?

An overwhelming number of meta-analyses and reviews are published by scientific journals. In part this may reflect some preference of editors and publishers for these types of papers, which are more frequently cited and can increase the impact factor of their journals. Meta-analyses and reviews are also attractive for investigators looking for a greater chance of having successful publications with several citations, and therefore an improved personal h-index. This greater 'promise of success' might have a deleterious effect on the intellectual maturation of investigators, particularly early career investigators, who might neglect original research and concentrate their efforts on meta-analyses and reviews. However, while meta-analyses and reviews are useful for emphasising data and disseminating concepts, progress in science requires original ideas, original experiments and original papers. 'Analysts' and 'novelists' are welcome, but 'scientists' are indispensable.

Correlation of Scholarly Activity and Departmental Clinical Productivity in a Surgical Subspecialty.

INTRODUCTION: Promotion within academic surgery involves demonstrated excellence in administrative, clinical, and scholarly activities. The present study analyzes the relationship between scholarly and clinical productivity in the field of reconstructive microsurgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of microsurgery fellowship directors (MFDs). Data on clinical productivity were obtained from the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery and scholarly productivity from Scopus. Outcomes were department annual free flap volume, number of publications, and h-index. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and nonparametric tests were used to compare continuous variables. RESULTS: Thirty-nine MFDs were included in this study. All were plastic surgery residency trained and 38% trained under the independent training pathway. Most underwent formal fellowship training in reconstructive microsurgery (89%). The top three microsurgery fellowships trained 37% of all MFDs. Twenty-five percent of MFDs trained at the institution where they ultimately became program director. Twenty percent of MFDs had an additional degree (4 MS, 2 PhD, and 1 MBA). The median number of annual free flaps performed per institution was 175 (interquartile range [IQR] 122). The median h-index was 17 (IQR 13) resulting from 48 (IQR 99) publications. There was a correlation between department annual free flap volume and h-index (r = 0.333, P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: There is a correlation between academic productivity of MFDs and the clinical productivity of their department. This study provides a benchmark for aspiring reconstructive microsurgeons.

A swift expanding trend of extracellular vesicles in spinal cord injury research: a bibliometric analysis.

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) in the field of spinal cord injury (SCI) have garnered significant attention for their potential applications in diagnosis and therapy. However, no bibliometric assessment has been conducted to evaluate the scientific progress in this area. A search of articles in Web of Science (WoS) from January 1, 1991, to May 1, 2023, yielded 359 papers that were analyzed using various online analysis tools. These articles have been cited 10,842 times with 30.2 times per paper. The number of publications experienced explosive growth starting in 2015. China and the United States led this research initiative. Keywords were divided into 3 clusters, including "Pathophysiology of SCI", "Bioactive components of EVs", and "Therapeutic effects of EVs in SCI". By integrating the average appearing year (AAY) of keywords in VoSviewer with the time zone map of the Citation Explosion in CiteSpace, the focal point of research has undergone a transformative shift. The emphasis has moved away from pathophysiological factors such as "axon", "vesicle", and "glial cell" to more mechanistic and applied domains such as "activation", "pathways", "hydrogels" and "therapy". In conclusions, institutions are expected to allocate more resources towards EVs-loaded hydrogel therapy and the utilization of innovative materials for injury mitigation.

The 100 most-cited articles published in the Veterinary Ophthalmology journal between 1998 and 2022: A bibliometric study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to bibliometrically analyze the 100 most-cited articles published in the Veterinary Ophthalmology (VO) journal. METHODS: Web of Science was searched for citations of VO articles published in 1998-2022. Tissue and species studied, and first and last author domicile and affiliation were recorded for the 100 most-cited articles and descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: Altogether, the 100 most-cited VO articles have cited a total of 5483 times. Most commonly, these were devoted to the cornea (23%), multiple tissues (19%), and glaucoma (16%). Studies on dogs (36%), horses (17%), and multiple species (15%) were most often cited. Most first/last authors were from the USA (n = 113), Brazil (n = 13), and France and Germany (n = 7 each), and most frequently affiliated with the University of Florida (n = 36), University of Wisconsin-Madison (n = 15), and Animal Health Trust, North Carolina State University, and Ohio State University (n = 6 each). KN Gelatt (n = 9), DE Brooks (n = 6), and FJ Ollivier and EO MacKay (n = 5 each) were the most frequent first or last authors. The greatest number of citations was for articles with KN Gelatt (n = 555), FJ Ollivier (n = 411), and DE Brooks (n = 372) as first or last authors. "The comparative morphology of the tapetum lucidum" by FJ Ollivier et al. (2002) is the most frequently cited article in VO history (n = 178). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into the impact of publishing in VO and a more comprehensive understanding of trends and the most influential contributions to VO.

Bibliometric review on microplastic contamination in the Pacific Alliance countries.

Microplastics, capable of absorbing persistent organic compounds, heavy metals, and emerging pollutants, are of global concern due to their potential to alter the behavior and metabolism of biota. In Latin America, the Pacific Alliance, comprising Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Chile, stands out for its biological wealth and productive ecosystems, which account for 37% of the region's gross domestic product. The leaders of these countries expressed their concern about microplastic pollution and pledged to take joint action. We conducted an analysis of the scientific production of these countries and the collaborations of their researchers, focused on the period 2015-2023, using Scopus and SCImago. We observed that marine-coastal/wetland ecosystems are the most studied, with a focus on fish, and that Mexico leads in publications, followed by Colombia, Peru, and Chile. In addition, we note the absence of an inter-institutional group dedicated to microplastics research in these countries. We recommend promoting collaboration between academic institutions specialized in microplastic research and government agencies dedicated to the promotion of science and technology in the countries belonging to the Pacific Alliance.

Bibliometric analysis of the Vogt‒Koyanagi‒Harada disease literature.

PURPOSE: As an autoimmune disease, Vogt‒Koyanagi‒Harada disease (VKHD) is a main type of uveitis in many countries and regions, significantly impacting patient vision. At present, information regarding VKHD is still limited, and further research is needed. We conducted a bibliometric analysis to characterize the overall status, current trends, and current focus of VKHD research. METHOD: Literature published from 1975 to 2022 was obtained from the Web of Science core collection and analysed with the R-language packages Bibliometrix, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace software. RESULTS: A total of 1050 papers on VKHD were retrieved from 261 journals, and 16,084 references were obtained from the papers in the original search. The average annual number of published articles was approximately 21.9, and the number of publications rapidly increased after 2004. The journal Ocular Immunology and Inflammation published the most papers on VKHD, while the American Journal of Ophthalmology has the highest citation frequency. The leading countries were Japan, China (PRC), and the United States of America (USA). Yang PZ from Chongqing Medical University was the most prolific and cited author. The most frequently cited study discussed revision of VKHD diagnostic criteria. An analysis of the highest frequency keywords showed that most research focused on the treatment, diagnosis, and pathogenesis of VKHD and its relationship with other related diseases. At present, the most urgent research direction is in the relationship between COVID-19 or COVID-19 vaccines and VKHD and the corresponding mechanisms underlying it. CONCLUSION: Utilizing dynamic and visualization tools, bibliometrics provides a clear depiction of the research history, development trends, and research hotspots in VKHD It serves as a valuable tool for identifying research gaps and areas that necessitate further exploration. Our study revealed potential directions for future VKHD research, including investigating specific molecular mechanisms underlying the disease, exploring the clinical utility of optical coherence tomography angiography and other diagnostic techniques, and conducting clinical research on novel therapeutic drugs.

Identifying the Leading Global Contributors to Scholarship in Religion Journals: A Bibliometric Study.

This study identified the 100 most impactful global contributors to religion journals and mapped their respective disciplinary affiliations. To conduct this investigation, we performed a secondary data analysis of a Scopus-derived database featuring the world's leading scientists. The mean contributor published 51.93 papers, had an h-index of 13.57, and an hm-index 11.50. Most contributors were located in the USA with the most common disciplinary affiliations being religion, non-specialized (n = 22), sociology, non-specialized (n = 21), sociology of religion (n = 20), and theology (n = 11). The results reveal that religion discourse is populated by some of the leading scholars in the world. Leveraging their expertise can help advance the field's knowledge development.

Evaluation of the i10-Index in Plastic Surgery Research and its Correlation with Altmetric Attention Scores and Traditional Author Bibliometrics: An Evaluation of a Single Journal.

Background Although the Hirsch index (H-index) has become one of the most accepted measures of scholarly output, its limitations have led to the proposition of newer alternative metrics. The i10-index, notable for being easy to calculate and free to access, has potential, given its association with the power and ubiquity of Google. This study aims to evaluate the utility of the i10-index for plastic surgery research by examining its relationship with author bibliometrics and article metrics, including the H-index and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Methods Article metrics were extracted from articles published in the highest impact plastic surgery journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, over a 2-year period (2017-2019). Senior author bibliometrics, including i10-index and H5-index, were obtained from Web of Science. Correlation analysis was performed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r s ). Results A total of 1,668 articles were published and 971 included. Senior author i10-index measurements demonstrated moderate correlation with times emailed (r s = 0.47), and weak correlations with H5-index, total publications, and sum of times cited with and without self-citations. The H5-index correlated very strongly with total publications (r s = 0.91) and sum of times cited (both r s = 0.97), moderately with average citations per item (r s = 0.66) and times emailed (r s = 0.41), and weakly with number of citations by posts, AAS, and times tweeted. Conclusions Although the i10 strongly correlates with the H5-index, it fails to prove superior to the H5-index in predicting the impact of specific research studies in the field of plastic surgery.

NIH Funding, Research Productivity, and Scientific Impact: a 20-Year Study.

BACKGROUND: The Research Project Grant (R01) is the oldest grant mechanism used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Receiving an R01 award is often taken as a sign of scientific success. We presented normative data on multiple productivity and impact metrics for a more objective assessment of funded grants' scientific success. METHODS: All initial R01 grants awarded by NIH in the year 2000 were prospectively followed and evaluated using the numbers of publications and citations, as well as the h-indices at the grant level. We examined the variability, time trends, and relations among these metrics to better understand the funded projects' cumulative output and impact. RESULTS: In the 20 years since initial funding, 4451 R01 grants generated a total of 55,053 publications. These publications were cumulatively cited 3,705,553 times over 736,811 citation years. The median number of publications was 8 (25th, 75th percentiles 4, 17) per grant for the entire 20-year duration. The median number of citations and the median h-index were 441 (25th, 75th percentiles 156, 1061) and 7 (25th, 75th percentiles 4, 13) per grant, respectively. The time courses of publication, citation, and accumulation of h-index were highly variable among the awarded grants. Although the metrics were correlated within an award, they reflected the grant's success in different domains. CONCLUSION: Numbers of publications, citations, and h-indices vary greatly among funded R01 grants. When used together, these metrics provide a more complete picture of the productivity and long-term impact of a funded grant.

The Association Between H-Index and Publication of Plastic Surgery Meeting Presenters From 2014 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: Plastic surgery is a competitive specialty that values research productivity among members of the field. The Hirsch index has been shown to measure a researcher's scientific impact. This study sought to determine whether an association exists between H-indices and the probability of and speed to publication. METHODS: Using Scopus, Google Scholar, PubMed, and the Plastic Surgery the Meeting (PSTM) website, first author (FAHi) and senior author (SAHi) H-indices (n = 1048) from Plastic Surgery the Meeting (PSTM) abstracts from 2014 to 2017 were collected. Whether or not an abstract was ultimately published in a peer-reviewed journal was noted. If published, number of days between PSTM presentation and publication date were recorded. Logistic regression model was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: In total, 592 out of 1048 total abstracts were published as manuscripts. FAHi and SAHi had significant positive correlations with odds of publication. Both FAHi and SAHi showed positive correlation with the odds of abstract publication (P < 0.001 and P = 0.033). Impact of FAHi on likelihood of publication was greater than that of SAHi. The correlation between FAHi and SAHi with the number of days until abstract publication was not significant (P = 0.333 and P = 0.856). For abstracts published before the PSTM presentation date (15.9% of published), only FAHi (P = 0.008) showed positive correlation of publication before presentation. CONCLUSIONS: The Hirsch index provides an objective method for evaluating the probability that an abstract will lead to manuscript publication, in addition to its traditional application in gauging the impact of research. The findings of this study support that both FAHi and SAHi have a positive, direct correlation with the probability of publication.

Gender Disparity in Academic Gastroenterology: Beginning of the End of the Underrepresentation of Women?

BACKGROUND: Though there are an increasing number of female medical graduates, women remain underrepresented in academic medicine. There have been several reasons to explain this gender disparity, including marital status, number of children, number of hours worked, job flexibility, perceptions of women as inferior leaders, gender bias, sexual harassment, and unsupportive academic climates. AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between scholarly productivity and the representation of female gastroenterologists in academia. Specifically, scholarly productivity measured by the h-index and academic rank were explored to determine if there were gender disparities in academic productivity and rank in gastroenterology. METHODS: Gastroenterology departmental listings were obtained from the Fellowship and Residency Interactive Database of the American Medical Association. The Scopus database was used to record each physician's h-index. Statistical analyses were conducted with Wilcoxon rank-sum test, which compared matched samples by academic rank, and ANOVA tests, which compared multiple academic ranks. RESULTS: Out of 1703 academic gastroenterologists, women account for 25% of academic physicians. Women have statistically lower h-indices at the level of Assistant Professor (p = 0.0012), and at the level of Chair (p = 0.01). There was no difference in h-indices between male and female at the rank of Associate Professor and Professor. CONCLUSIONS: While these results mirror patterns appreciated in other fields of medicine, the results at the rank of Chair may suggest that despite the lower h-index compared to their male counterparts, females are perceived as having strong inherent leadership skills outside of academic productivity that are also conducive to leading a department and may be contributing to their rise to Chair.

Research and academic output evaluation for career initiation or progression: Critical issues for Health Professionals.

In current times, much stress is being laid on the evaluation of research productivity of researchers or faculty in addition to the academic qualifications and experience for the purposes of recruitment, promotion, and research grant funding. Over the years, several quantitative indices have been devised for this purpose. Some of these indices such as h-index, impact factor and e-index are being extensively used by research organizations, universities, accreditation bodies and funding agencies for basic scientists as well as health professionals. In the absence of any formal training, these parameters or their advantages and shortcomings may not be well understood by the health professionals, especially in the early stages of their careers and sometimes, even by the evaluators. A big unanswered question is the validity of the same criteria for health professionals as are applicable for the basic science researchers. Since health professional undertaking research assignments are neither adequately trained in basic research nor can they comprehend these indices well, the same yardstick to evaluate these two widely different groups of researchers often places the health professionals at a disadvantage.This paper aims to highlight certain vital issues related to the application of research productivity indicators for recruitment and career progression of health care professionals.

Incidence of Scholarly Publication by Selected Content Experts Presenting at National Society Foot and Ankle Meetings From 2016 to 2020.

Continuing medical education (CME) is an important element to maintain licensing requirements, enhance professional competence, and disseminate up to date, evidence-based, treatment recommendations. A key resource of CME are the 2 annual society meetings hosted by the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons (ACFAS) and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS). It is assumed that the selected speakers at these meetings are content experts, providing validated expertise on treatment recommendations, rather than anecdotal experience or opinion. Across all medical specialists, peer-reviewed publication(s) on a particular subject matter have long bestowed the ultimate validity of "expertise." The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of scholarly publication for invited speakers at the ACFAS and AOFAS annual meetings from 2016 to 2020, in relation to the topic they were selected to present. A review of invited lectures given at the ACFAS and AOFAS annual meetings from 2016 to 2020 was conducted, and lecturer demographics were categorized into predetermined content areas for assessment. Selected speakers were individually cross-referenced with content-specific peer-reviewed published literature, and overall h-index using Scopus. Topic and society specific comparisons were then made. Overall, 1028 lectures were identified during the temporal period. Only 300 (29.18%) presentations were given by a speaker with least one or more publication on the society specific lecture-topic presented. The greatest proportion of lecturers with content-specific publications was Charcot reconstruction (67.57%) followed by ankle fusion/replacement (55%). The average presenter h-index was greatest among total ankle replacement/ankle fusion (12.16 ± 6.90) and Charcot reconstruction (11.27 ± 7.10) content. The results of the present study illustrate a disparity of expertise among different content areas. While both meetings provide well-published lecturers, this study reveals areas for improvement.

A Bibliometric Study of the Pediatric Inguinal Hernia Publication Landscape from the Web of Science Database.

Background: The number of times a research work gets cited by another article is one of the article-level metrics for assessing the quality of a research publication. Citation analysis by bibliometric review has been performed in several disciplines. The current study was aimed to systematically review the literature available on pediatric inguinal hernia since 1960 in terms of the 25 most cited articles in this field and analyze the bibliometric variables author and organizational collaborative patterns. Methods: Thomson Reuters Web of Science citation indexing database and research platform were used to retrieve the most cited articles in pediatric inguinal hernia (PIH) using appropriate search strings. The characteristics (name of authors, the total number of authors, the title of publication, journal of publication, year of publication, etc.) of the 25 top-cited articles were recorded. Specific bibliographical parameters were derived and analyzed. Visualization maps were generated using VOSviewer software. Results: The analysis revealed that the Journal of Pediatric Surgery was leading the choice of journal for publication. While most of the publications originated from the United States of America, Schier was the most influential author. Five of the eight top-productive authors are also the most connected. Conclusion: Articles on laparoscopic repair in PIH have been heavily cited. Following the United States of America, Turkey stands out as the topmost productive country in PIH. The publications on PIH show that "collaboration" is the bridging force between productivity and influence on the academic community.

Research rating: Some technicalities.

From time immemorial, the body of scientific knowledge has grown with incremental additions of research. Metrics-based research evaluation provides crucial information regarding research credibility that would be difficult to understand by means of individual expertise. h-index and its modifications give an approximate quantitative measure of research output. Furthermore, g-index, e-index, h-index and i10-index address various intricacies involving authorship. Altmetrics and Plum X metrics are newer usage metrics that put an additional weightage on the impact on social media, usage, capture and scholarly networking. Indirect evaluation of research can also be obtained from the Journal Impact Factor in which the research is published but with certain limitations. While the scientific community is still waiting for a unique one-stop solution based on a high-quality robust process to exert judgement on research, the Leiden Manifesto comprising ten principles for research assessment can act as a guiding tool for development of a comprehensive evaluation system.

Bibliometric Review of Medical Student Research Before Matching Integrated Vascular Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Research output is one element of a multifactorial process that residency programs consider when evaluating applicants. However, there are minimal data assessing research productivity on admittance into research-oriented integrated vascular surgery residency (RO-IVSR) programs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of peer-reviewed research and the RO-IVSR match process. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Vascular surgery residents who matched into an RO-IVSR in 2015-2017 were divided into those matching an RO-IVSR top 10 program versus other. Total publications, first authorships, and type of research were compared between groups. Mann-Whitney U-tests were then performed between discrete levels of research productivity (0-1 versus ≥2 publications) to detect differences in ability to match a top 10 program. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight residents published a total of 214 original research articles (83%), 26 case reports (10%), and 19 systematic reviews (7%). There were 66 first authorships (25%). Median total publications at RO-IVSR top 10 versus other programs were 2 versus 1 (P < 0.01). Top 10 IVSR had a significant difference in median publications for all other research categories. The ability to match into a top 10 program by discrete levels of research productivity at 0-1 versus 2+ showed significance (P < 0.05) in all research categories, including total publications, first authorships, and H-index. CONCLUSIONS: There was significantly higher research productivity among medical students who matriculate to top 10 IVSR programs. Furthermore, having 2 or more publications significantly increased the likelihood of attending a top 10 program. Thus, top programs likely use an applicants' research productivity as a distinct qualification category and a marker of future success.

Scientific publications in internal medicine and family medicine: a comparative cross-sectional study in Swiss university hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Family medicine is a relatively new academic medical discipline. We aimed to compare the main bibliometric indices of hospital-based senior physicians practicing internal medicine versus family medicine in Switzerland. METHODS: We conducted this cross-sectional study in March 2020. We selected all hospital-based senior physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine in the six Swiss university hospitals. Using Web of Science, after removing from both groups of physicians the 5% with the highest number of publications, we extracted the number of publications, the number of publications per year, the number of citations, the number of citations per year, the number of citations per publication and the h-index. We compared the data between the two groups using negative binomial regressions and the proportion of physicians having at least one publication using chi-square tests. RESULTS: We included 349 physicians in the study (internal medicine: 51%, men: 51%). The median number of publications was three [interquartile range (IQR) = 18], the median number of citations was nine (IQR = 158) and the median h-index was one (IQR = 5). All bibliometric indices were similar in both groups, as was the proportion of physicians having at least one publication (family medicine: 87% versus 82%, P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: We found no association between the bibliometric indices and the medical specialty. Further studies are needed to explore other important indicators of academic output, such as those more specifically assessing its quality and scientific importance.