Is the h-Index Enough? A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of 871 Academic Plastic Surgeons and Their Departments/Divisions.

BACKGROUND: In plastic surgery academia, research output is heavily used as a metric of accreditation, from assessing residency applicants to evaluating faculty for promotion. The h index, defined as an author's h papers with at least h citations, is commonly used as a measure of academic success. However, the index itself disfavors junior researchers, favors publication quantity, and discounts highly cited works. Given the importance of bibliometrics within plastic surgery, there is a paramount need to adopt additional metrics to measure research productivity. The authors sought to validate the use of time-independent bibliometrics to complement the h index in measuring citation impact. METHODS: The genders and academic titles of plastic surgeons affiliated with US plastic surgery programs were recorded. Author publications were retrieved from Scopus. Bibliometrics software was used to calculate the following metrics per surgeon: h index, e index, and g index. Time-adjusted versions of these indices were used to correct for the number of years since first publication. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) are reported. Departmental ranks were determined using the cumulative sum of time-corrected indices and compared with Doximity departmental research rankings. P < 0.05 was deemed significant. RESULTS: Indices were calculated for 871 academic plastic surgeons in 85 departments/divisions. Men had statistically greater h index (median, 13.0 [IQR, 7.0-21.0] vs 6.0 [IQR, 3.0-13]; P < 0.001), e index (18.3 [IQR, 10.0-28.7] vs 11.1 [IQR, 5.5-18.4]; P < 0.001), and g index (23.0 [IQR, 11.0-39.0] vs 11.0 [IQR, 5.0-22.0]; P < 0.001) than women. Professors had the highest median time-uncorrected indices. After adjusting for the number of years since an author's first publication, there were no significant differences in m quotient (men: 0.66 [IQR, 0.40-0.98] vs women: 0.57 [IQR, 0.33-0.90]; P = 0.05) and ec index (men: 0.93 [IQR, 0.62-1.3] vs women: 0.87 [IQR, 0.50-1.3]; P = 0.08) between genders. Departmental chairs had significantly higher indices than other faculty after correcting for time. The calculated program rankings were low to moderately correlated with that of Doximity (correlation coefficient τ = 0.49 [95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Men and women have statistically similar citation patterns after correcting for the time. Citation differences between academic levels are less pronounced when controlling for time, suggesting comparable research quality between academic roles.

A decade of diversity: using statistical indices to compare neurosurgery to other surgical specialties.

OBJECTIVE: Studies have demonstrated the benefits of diversity in neurosurgery. However, recruitment of minoritized groups within the neurosurgical workforce consistently lags other surgical specialties. While racial and gender demographics of neurosurgical residents are well documented, there has been minimal exploration into the multidimensional nature of diversity. The current study will evaluate the longitudinal diversity changes in neurosurgery residency programs compared with other surgical fields with validated diversity indices. METHODS: Nationwide reports including data about resident physicians were obtained from the American Medical Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges for the academic years 2008-2021. Self-reported race, biological sex, and medical school affiliation were recorded for surgical residents in the 10 commonly recognized surgical fields. The Gini-Simpson Diversity Index was used to calculate the effective counts (ECs) of races, sexes, and medical school types for each field. A Composite Diversity Index (CDI) comprising the aforementioned diversity traits was used to calculate the percentage of characteristics upon which two randomly selected residents within each specialty would differ. CDIs were calculated for each field in every year from 2008 to 2021. Median CDIs were compared between fields using Kruskal-Wallis testing, and p values < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: Plastic surgery had the highest median sex EC (1.92, interquartile range [IQR] 1.78-1.95), indicating greater diversity, while neurosurgery had the third lowest sex EC (1.40, IQR 1.35-1.41). All surgical fields examined had fewer than 3 races effectively represented among their residents, despite there being 8 races present. Neurosurgery ranked among the top fields in effective racial diversity (EC 2.17, IQR 2.09-2.21) and medical school type diversity (EC 1.25, IQR 1.21-1.26). There were statistically significant differences in the sex, race, and school ECs between surgical specialties. While neurosurgery had a relatively low median overall diversity (CDI = 32.7, IQR 32.0-34.6), there was a consistent longitudinal increase in CDI from 2015 to 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Neurosurgery resident physicians have become increasingly diverse in the past decade but are more homogenous than residents in other surgical fields. The continued use of diversity indices to more accurately track diversity progress over time may better inform leaders in the field of how they may best focus their equity and inclusion efforts.