Gender disparities in research productivity among 9952 academic physicians.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The number of women in medicine has increased considerably over the past 3 decades, and they now comprise approximately half of medical school matriculants. We examine whether gender disparities in research productivity are present throughout various specialties and compare these findings to those previously described among otolaryngologists. STUDY DESIGN: Bibliometric analysis. METHODS: Research productivity, measured by the h-index, was calculated for 9,952 academic physicians representing 34 medical specialties. Additionally, trends in how rate of research productivity changed throughout different career stages were compared. RESULTS: Women were underrepresented at the level of professor and in positions of departmental leadership relative to their representation among assistant and associate professors. Male faculty had statistically higher research productivity both overall (H = 10.3 ± 0.14 vs. 5.6 ± 0.14) and at all academic ranks. For the overall sample, men and women appeared to have equivalent rates of research productivity. In internal medicine, men had higher early-career productivity, while female faculty had productivity equaling and even surpassing that of their male colleagues beyond 20 to 25 years. Men and women had equivalent productivity in surgical specialties throughout their careers, and similar rates in pediatrics until 25 to 30 years. CONCLUSIONS: Female academic physicians have decreased research productivity relative to men, which may be one factor contributing to their underrepresentation at the level of professor and departmental leader relative to their proportions in junior academic ranks. Potential explanations may include fewer woman physicians in the age groups during which higher academic ranks are attained, greater family responsibilities, and greater involvement in clinical service and educational contributions.

Is there a relationship between National Institutes of Health funding and research impact on academic urology?

PURPOSE: Scholarly productivity in the form of research contributions is important for appointment and promotion in academic urology. Some believe that this production may require significant funding. We evaluated the relationship between National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, academic rank and research productivity, as measured by the h-index, an objective indicator of research impact on a field. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 361 faculty members from the top 20 NIH funded academic urology departments were examined for research productivity, as measured by the h-index and calculated from the Scopus database (http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus). Research productivity was compared to individual funding totals, the terminal degree and academic rank. RESULTS: NIH funded faculty members had statistically higher research productivity than nonfunded colleagues. Research productivity increased with increasing NIH funding. Departmental NIH funding correlated poorly with the mean department h-index. Successive academic rank was associated with increasing research productivity. Full professors had higher NIH funding awards than their junior NIH funded colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: There is an association among the h-index, NIH funding and academic rank. The h-index is a reliable method of assessing the impact of scholarly contributions toward the discourse in academic urology. It may be used as an adjunct for evaluating the scholarly productivity of academic urologists.

Is NIH funding predictive of greater research productivity and impact among academic otolaryngologists?

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The h-index is an accurate and reliable indicator of scholarly productivity that takes into account relevance, significance, and influence of research contributions. As such, it is an effective, objective bibliometric that can be used to evaluate academic otolaryngologists for decisions regarding appointment and advancement. In this study, we evaluate the impact of NIH funding on scholarly productivity in otolaryngology. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists. METHODS: Funding data for the 20 otolaryngology departments with the largest aggregate total of NIH grants for the fiscal years (FY) 2011 and 2012 was obtained using the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports (RePORTER) Database. H-indices were calculated using the Scopus online database, and then compared to funding data at both the departmental and individual level. RESULTS: Faculty members in otolaryngology departments who received NIH funding had significantly greater research productivity and impact, as measured by the h-index, than their nonfunded peers. H-indices increased with greater NIH funding levels, and investigators with MD degrees tended to have higher mean NIH funding levels than those with PhDs. While there was no correlation between average h-index and NIH funding totals at the level of departments, there was greater correlation upon examination of NIH funding levels of individual investigators. CONCLUSIONS: The h-index has a strong relationship with, and may be predictive of, grant awards of NIH-funded faculty members in otolaryngology departments. This bibliometric may be useful in decisions regarding appointment and advancement of faculty members within academic otolaryngology departments.

Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether there are gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments, as measured by academic rank and the h-index, a published, objective measure of research contributions that quantifies the number and significance of papers published by a given author. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists. METHODS: Faculty listings from academic otolaryngology departments were used to determine academic rank and gender. The Scopus database was used to determine h-index and publication range (in years) of these faculty members. In addition, 20 randomly chosen institutions were used to compare academic otolaryngologists to faculty members in other surgical specialties. RESULTS: Mean h-indices increased through the rank of professor. Among academic otolaryngologists, men had significantly higher h-indices than women, a finding also noted on examination of faculty members from other specialties. Men had higher research productivity rates at earlier points in their career than women did. The productivity rates of women increased and equaled or surpassed those of men later in their careers. Men had higher absolute h-index values at junior academic ranks. Women academic otolaryngologists of senior rank had higher absolute h-indices than their male counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: The h-index measures research significance in an objective manner and indicates that although men have higher overall research productivity in academic otolaryngology, women demonstrate a different productivity curve. Women produce less research output earlier in their careers than men do, but at senior levels, they equal or exceed the research productivity of men.