Evaluation of Adult Reconstruction and Arthroplasty Fellowships in the United States Based on Academic Productivity.

Background: Institutional academic productivity varies on an individual level. This study aims to analyze the research output of adult reconstruction and arthroplasty fellowship programs in the United States. Methods: The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Fellowship Directory was used to evaluate 112 adult reconstruction and arthroplasty fellowships in the United States. Publication data and Hirsch index (h-index) were collected from the Scopus Database. All of each author's total publications were analyzed with their current institution, regardless of their affiliation at the time of publication. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed to determine the effect of program size on research productivity. Results: The total number of publications per institution ranged from 2 to 3743, with a mean of 289 and a median of 135. The h-index of individual faculty members ranged from 0 to 103, with a mean of 16 and a median of 11. The number of faculty (P < .001) and number of fellows (P = .003) per program had a significant effect on the total number of publications. The number of faculty did not have a significant effect on the median number of publications (P = .12) or the median h-index (P = .31). The number of fellows had a significant effect on the median number of publications (P < .001) and the median h-index (P < .001). Conclusions: Academic productivity in adult reconstruction and arthroplasty fellowships within the United States varies widely, with the top few institutions responsible for a majority of the overall output.

Academic Citation Partnership: A Predatory Practice that Undermines Scholarly Integrity.

Recently, academic circles have raised concerns about academic citation partnerships. Many researchers receive emails offering these partnerships, often landing in their spam folders. In this paper, I refer to academic citation partnerships as unethical collaborative arrangements where researchers or authors agree to cite each other's work in their academic publications to enhance their academic profiles, often measured by metrics like the h-index. I discuss the characteristics of such partnerships, individuals, and groups who are commonly involved in academic citation partnerships, and clarify what is not considered an academic citation partnership. I argue that these partnerships are predatory and pose a serious threat to scholarly integrity. Such solicitations blur ethical boundaries by treating citations as commodities, similar to predatory journals and conferences. These partnerships compromise the authenticity of scholarly discourse, artificially inflate perceived impacts, and distort academic evaluations. They undermine the pursuit of knowledge for its intrinsic value and exacerbate inequalities in academia by favoring those who can manipulate citation metrics through resources or networks. Addressing this issue requires a commitment to vigilance and adherence to ethical citation standards, ensuring academic discourse that is intellectually honest and genuinely beneficial to academia.

NIH funding and journal selection: trends in dermatology publication models across tiers from 2021 to 2023.

This study examines the influence of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding on the publication choices of dermatologists, particularly in terms of journal tiers and pay-to-publish (P2P) versus free-to-publish (F2P) models. Utilizing k-means clustering for journal ranking based on SCImago Journal Rank, h-index, and Impact Factor, journals were categorized into three tiers and 54,530 dermatology publications from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Authors were classified as Top NIH Funded or Non-Top NIH Funded according to Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings. The study finds significant differences in publication patterns, with Top NIH Funded researchers in Tier I journals demonstrating a balanced use of P2P and F2P models, while they preferred F2P models in Tier II and III journals. Non-Top NIH Funded authors, however, opted for P2P models more frequently across all tiers. These data suggest NIH funding allows researchers greater flexibility to publish in higher-tier journals despite publication fees, while prioritizing F2P models in lower-tier journals. Such a pattern indicates that funding status plays a critical role in strategic publication decisions, potentially impacting research visibility and subsequent funding. The study's dermatology focus limits broader applicability, warranting further research to explore additional factors like geographic location, author gender, and research design.

Senior Mentorship and Scholarly Success: Assessing Influences on Successful Neurosurgery Residency Applicant's H-Index.

BACKGROUND: Research productivity is on the rise as neurosurgical residency positions become increasingly competitive. We explored the relationship between neurosurgical residency applicant's senior author's research productivity and matching into a neurosurgery residency program. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of bibliometric data for applicants who matched into neurosurgery in 2022-2023 and their senior authors was conducted using Scopus. RESULTS: Logistic regression revealed a significant association between h-index values and top 40 match outcomes (P = 0.038). The maximum h-index of senior authors significantly predicted matches at top 40 programs (P = 0.003). Affiliation with a top 40 medical school increased both applicant and senior author h-indices (P = 0.05, P < 0.001 respectively). Linear regression of the maximum h-index of senior authors in preresidency publications explained 42% of this variability (P < 0.001). A multiple linear regression model incorporating this with publication number elucidated 69% of the variance in interns' h-index. Authorship data categorized as first, second, and third author positions showed 1847 first author, 1417 second author, and 118 third author publications over 2-years. Applicants at top 40 residency programs had more first and second author publications compared to those from nontop 40 programs (P = 0.0158, P = 0.0275). CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong correlation between a neurosurgical applicant's academic output and that of their senior authors. The number of publications and the maximum h-index of senior authors significantly predict applicant h-indices. We also demonstrated that there is a significant difference in the academic productivity of applicants and senior authors of applicants who successfully match into a top 40 i(h)5 rated neurosurgical residency.

Association of Scholarly Impact to Industrial Contributions Among Academic Interventional Radiologists.

OBJECTIVE: The Physician Sunshine Act of 2010 aimed to increase public awareness of physician-industry relationships. Our objective was to evaluate whether there is an association between scholarly impact and industry funding among academic interventional radiologists. METHODS: A database from a prior study with our group was used in which we had investigated H-indices among US interventional radiologists; academic rank, gender, institution, and geographic location were obtained. The Scopus database was queried to determine all physicians' H-index. The CMS Open Payments database was used to determine industry payments from 2015 to 2021 for each interventional radiologist. RESULTS: H-index and professor rank positively and significantly correlated with industrial funding (H-index coefficient = $6,977, P < .001 and professor rank coefficient = $183,902, P = .003). Industry funding was found to be significantly different between all ranks. Among 830 academic interventional radiologists, the mean industrial funding of male physicians was $130,034, which was significantly higher than female physicians' $28,166 (P = .00013). By academic rank, male primary investigators of associate professor and unranked position had higher industrial funding than female primary investigators (Wilcoxon test, P = .029 and P= .039, respectively). Professor and assistant professor ranks had no significant difference in industrial funding between male and female physicians (Wilcoxon's test, P = .080 and P = .053, respectively). CONCLUSION: Scholarly activity as defined by the H-index and academic rank seem to have a positive association with industry funding of academic interventional radiologists.

K-Means clustering of dermatology journals: comparing the distribution of "free-to-publish" and "pay-to-publish" models.

This study investigates the impact of Free-to-Publish (F2P) versus Pay-to-Publish (P2P) models in dermatology journals, focusing on their differences in terms of journal metrics, Article Processing Charges (APCs), and Open Access (OA) status. Utilizing k-means clustering, the research evaluates dermatology journals based on SCImago Journal Rankings (SJR), H-Index, and Impact Factor (IF), and examines the correlation between these metrics, APCs, and OA status (Full or Hybrid). Data from the SCImago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Report databases were used, and metrics from 106 journals were normalized and grouped into three tiers.The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.Conclusively, the study highlights the disparities in dermatology journals between F2P and P2P models and underscores the need for further research into authorship demographics and institutional affiliations in these journals. It also establishes the effectiveness of k-means clustering as a standardized method for assessing journal quality, which can reduce reliance on potentially biased individual metrics.

Analysis of neurosurgery resident research activity in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the demographic and academic characteristics of current neurosurgery residents may provide prospective students with insight into factors that affect research output. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the research output among neurosurgery residents. METHODS: US neurosurgery residency programs were abstracted from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons website. Demographic data on 1690 current residents across 119 programs were collected using publicly available institutional websites, Doximity, and LinkedIn. The h-index of each resident was recorded using Scopus and exported into the NIH iCite tool to determine the weighted relative citation ratio (w-RCR) and mean relative citation ratio (m-RCR). The total number of publications, h-index, and w-RCR were used as a proxy for research output, while m-RCR was used to measure research impact. One-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis H-tests were used to assess the statistical significance of relationships between demographic data and measures of research activity. RESULTS: A total of 1690 residents (25.4% female), representing 119 programs, were evaluated. Neurosurgery residents had an average of 17 publications, h-index of 5.5, m-RCR of 1.4, and w-RCR of 16.9, with an upward trend of research activity by postgraduate year (PGY) class. Male residents on average had a greater total number of publications (p < 0.001), higher h-index (p < 0.001), and higher w-RCR (p = 0.002) compared with their female peers. Significant differences in research activity were also observed by degree (Doctor of Medicine [MD], Doctor of Osteopathy [DO], or other), where those with MD and other degrees had higher metrics than those with DO degrees. International medical graduates (IMGs) also had higher research output than American medical graduates (AMGs) (p < 0.001). Differences in all measures of research activity except impact were also observed in research activity when pre-residency medical school ranks were compared. CONCLUSIONS: The authors observed overall high research activity among neurosurgery residents. Factors such as gender, degree, PGY, IMG/AMG status, and medical school rank may therefore be related to the success of matching within neurological surgery. Although large disparities in gender representation have been identified in neurosurgery, newer classes are trending toward shrinking the gap. These data may be used by prospective residents to gauge changes and progress occurring in the neurosurgery match.

Academic Productivity in Ophthalmology and Its Correlation to National Economic Indicators Among the OECD Countries: A Bibliometric Analysis.

PURPOSE: Prompted by the clinical concern that limited healthcare resources allocation affects physicians' research productivity, this study examines the association between bibliometric indices of ophthalmologic research and national economic indicators in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. METHODS: The Scimago Journal and Country rank source was searched for research productivity data in ophthalmology among OECD countries between 1996 and 2019. Bibliometric indices included: documents number, number and percent of citable documents, citations number, citations per document, and H-index. The updated economic indicators of each country (gross domestic product [GDP] per capita, health spending as percent of GDP (health expenditure), gross domestic expenditure on research, and development as percent of GDP [GERD]) were collected from the World Bank and the OECD websites. Correlation between economic and bibliometric metrics and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among 267,444 documents analyzed, correlation analysis found a strong correlation between health expenditure and H index (r = 0.711, p < 0.001); a moderate correlation between health expenditure and documents number (r = 0.589, p < 0.001), number of citable document (r = 0.593, p < 0.001) and citations number (r = 0.673, p < 0.001); and a moderate correlation between GERD and H index (r = 0.564, p < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis controlling for economic factors, population and language showed the independent association of these parameters with bibliometric indices. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a positive correlation between bibliometric indicators of ophthalmology research and economic factors, particularly health expenditure, among the OECD countries. Our results suggest an advantage of domestic investment in health to expand academic productivity in the field of ophthalmology.

A comprehensive evaluation of career trajectories of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons William P. Van Wagenen fellows.

Objective: To elucidate the current academic, demographic, and professional factors influencing the career trajectories of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) William P. Van Wagenen (VW) fellows while also identifying trends that may influence future fellow selection. Methods: Fifty-five VW fellows were identified from 1968 to 2022 from the AANS website, along with corresponding institutions, countries, and continents of study. Additional variables such as age at selection, accruing additional degrees, neurosurgical subspecialty, the number of publications at the time of selection, funding, and h-index were collected from various publicly available sources. Results: Eighty-five percent of VW fellows were male and had a mean age of 34 ± 2.4 years. Ninety-one percent of fellows chose to study in Europe, and 40% had earned additional degrees. Univariate linear regression demonstrated a positive relationship between the year of selection and both age at selection (p = 0.0094) and the number of publications at hire (p < 0.001), while logistic regression revealed that more recently selected fellows were less likely to study in Europe (p = 0.037) and be of the white race (p = 0.0047). Logistic regression also exhibited a positive trend between the year of selection and both the likelihood that the VW fellow was currently enrolled in another fellowship (p = 0.019) and possessed additional degrees (p = 0.0019). Females were shown to have fewer publications at hire compared to males (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Most Van Wagenen fellows are academically productive members of the neurosurgical community. Increased attention is likely to be placed on both academic, research, and individualized factors when selecting future fellows.

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.

Systematic bibliometric analysis of research hotspots and trends on the application of premium IOLs in the past 2 decades.

AIM: To analysis of research hotspots and trends on the application of premium intraocular lens (PIOLs) in the past 2 decades. METHODS: The literature search was performed on the Web of Science and included PIOLs studies published between January 2000 and December 2022. The retrieved literature was collated and analyzed by R-tool's Bibliometrix package, CitNetExplorer, CiteSpace and other software. RESULTS: A total of 1801 articles about PIOLs were obtained, most of which were published in Spain and the United States. The organization that published the most articles was the University of Valencia in Spain. Alió JL, and Montés-Micó R, from Spain were the most influential authors in this field. The Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery and Journal of Refractive Surgery were the core journals for this field; the top 10 cited articles mainly focus on postoperative satisfaction with multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) and postoperative results of toric IOLs. Through the keyword analysis, we found that trifocal IOLs, astigmatism and extended depth of focus (EDoF) IOLs are the most discussed topics at present, and the importance of astigmatism and the clinical application of the new generation of PIOLs are the emerging research trends. CONCLUSION: Bibliometric analysis can effectively help to identify multilevel concerns in PIOLs research and the prevailing research trends in the realm of PIOLs encompass the adoption of EDoF IOLs, trifocal IOLs, and their respective Toric models.

Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine and chemistry.

The Nobel Prize is an annual honor awarded to the researchers who have made the greatest contribution to humanity with their work in the year in question. Nobel Prizes for physiology or medicine and chemistry most often have direct or indirect pharmacological relevance. In this study, we performed a bibliometric analysis of Nobel Prize laureates from 2006 to 2022. The parameters include the nationalities and age of the laureates, age at their productivity peaks, the research locations, the H-index, the age-adjusted H-index, and the number of citations and publications, and, for each parameter, a comparison of female and male award laureates. Men were much more often awarded the Nobel Prize than women. Surprisingly, women were younger than their male colleagues at the time of the award although the productivity peak was similar. There was a correlation between all publications and the H-index, which was slightly stronger for women than for men. The age-adjusted H-index showed no difference among genders. The USA were the country with the highest number of Nobel Prize laureates, both male and female. Overall, the bibliometric characteristics of male and female Nobel Prize laureates are similar, indicating that among the group of Nobel Prize laureates, there is no bias against women. Rather, the achievements of women are recognized earlier than those of men. The major difference is that the number of women becoming Nobel Prize laureates is much smaller than the number of men. This study provides a starting for future studies with larger populations of scientists to analyze disparities.

The Top 50 Articles and Authors of the New Millennium in Psychiatry: A Bibliometric Analysis.

The field of psychiatry faces significant challenges in the new millennium, marked by a surge in mental health diagnoses coupled with barriers to accessing adequate care. Despite obstacles, notable advancements have been achieved throughout the field, including the release of DSM-5, the introduction of esketamine, and the development of innovative assessment tools. This study aims to comprehensively analyze recent advances in psychiatry by examining the top 50 most cited articles and authors since 2000, addressing a gap in the literature left by previous subfield-focused bibliometric studies. Utilizing the Web of Science (WOS) database, this bibliometric analysis examined all publications in psychiatric journals from January 1, 2000, to September 18, 2022. The top 50 most cited articles and authors were identified and characterized based on various metrics, including times cited, article type, and institutional affiliations. WOS extracted 699,005 articles, with authors from the United States contributing the highest number of publications. The top 50 articles spanned a variety of formats, with cross-sectional studies, new measures, literature reviews, and randomized controlled trials being the most prevalent. The American Journal of Psychiatry emerged as the leading journal, hosting eight of the top 50 articles. Among the top 50 authors, female representation was limited, comprising 24% of first authors and 22% overall. Institutional affiliations revealed a majority of top authors worked at universities affiliated with the top 40 NIH-funded departments of psychiatry, with those affiliated with Harvard University leading in authorship contributions. This study sheds light on recent advancements in psychiatry, emphasizing the underrepresentation of female authors and the prevalence of top authors affiliated with major NIH-funded programs. This bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive overview of recent advances and the top recent contributors in the field, fostering a deeper understanding of the evolving landscape of psychiatry in the new millennium.

A Modified H-index Calculated Using the Duration of Professional Experience and the Author's Significant Contribution to Publications.

Recently, the h-index (HI) has been accepted as a globally valid indicator that measures the professional achievement of scientists. Although it has been criticized in some respects, it is the most frequently used parameter as a criterion that generally measures the number and quality of publications combined. In the evaluation of the scientific publication, apart from these, the duration (years) of professional experience of the scientist and the impact/significance of the author's contribution to publications should also be used; however, HI does not take these into account. In this article, we present our recommendations for a modified HI considering these two important parameters.

Analysis of Research Activity Among Ophthalmology Fellows.

PURPOSE: The academic success of ophthalmology fellows may be significantly impacted by their research engagement. Evaluating the research activity of fellows by subspecialty may provide insight into trends useful for prospective applicants. The objective of this study was to assess the research activity of ophthalmology fellows in the year 2023. METHODS: Ophthalmology fellowship programs were compiled using the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology and the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery websites. Program subspecialties were categorized as: Cornea and External Disease [CED]; Cornea, External Disease, and Refractive Surgery [CEDRS]; Glaucoma; Medical Retina [MR]; Neuro-Ophthalmology [NO]; Oculoplastics; Pediatric Ophthalmology [PO]; Surgical Retina [SR]; Uveitis; and Other. "Other" consisted of Oncology, Pathology, combined Oncology and Pathology fellowships. We identified current fellows using publicly available online information. Programs and fellows that did not have information available were excluded. Total publications, Hirsch index (h-index), and weighted-relative citation ration (w-RCR) were utilized as measures of research output, while total citations and mean-RCR (m-RCR) served as proxies for research impact. Duration of publishing was calculated using the years of the oldest and most recent publications. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis H tests with an alpha value of .05. RESULTS: A total of 373 fellows from 229 programs met our inclusion criteria. More than half of fellows were men (54.4%), and the most common degree type was MD (93.0%). Across all subspecialties, the median h-index was 3.0 (IQR = 4), m-RCR was .9 (IQR = 1.2) and w-RCR was 3.2 (IQR = 9.8). The median number of publications was six (IQR = 10, with 34 citations (IQR = 110) and 4 years of publishing (IQR = 6). We observed significant differences in h-index (p = .038), total publications (p < .001), and w-RCR (p = .028) by subspecialty. CONCLUSION: We observed significant differences in research output, but no differences in research impact by subspecialty. Overall, Uveitis and Oculoplastics fellows had higher research activity, while Medical Retina and Other fellows had the lowest. This data is pertinent to better understand the landscape of ophthalmology fellowship applications.

Academic accomplishments of Black neurosurgeons in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Neurosurgery has remained relatively homogeneous in terms of racial and gender diversity, trailing behind national demographics. Less than 5% of practicing neurosurgeons in the United States identify as Black/African American (AA). Research and academic productivity are highly emphasized within the field and are crucial for career advancement at academic institutions. They also serve as important avenues for mentorship and recruitment of diverse trainees and medical students. This study aimed to summarize the academic accomplishments of AA neurosurgeons by assessing publication quantity, h-index, and federal grant funding. METHODS: One hundred thirteen neurosurgery residency training programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 2022 were included in this study. The American Society of Black Neurosurgeons registry was reviewed to analyze the academic metrics of self-identified Black or AA academic neurosurgeons. Data on the academic rank, leadership position, publication quantity, h-index, and race of neurosurgical faculty in the US were obtained from publicly available information and program websites. RESULTS: Fifty-five AA and 1393 non-AA neurosurgeons were identified. Sixty percent of AA neurosurgeons were fewer than 10 years out from residency training, compared to 37.4% of non-AA neurosurgeons (p = 0.001). AA neurosurgeons had a median 32 (IQR 9, 85) publications compared to 52 (IQR 22, 122) for non-AA neurosurgeons (p = 0.019). AA neurosurgeons had a median h-index of 12 (IQR 5, 24) compared to 16 (IQR 9, 31) for non-AA colleagues (p = 0.02). Following stratification by academic rank, these trends did not persist. No statistically significant differences in the median amounts of awarded National Institutes of Health funding (p = 0.194) or level of professorship attained (p = 0.07) were observed between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Racial disparities between AA and non-AA neurosurgeons exist in publication quantity and h-index overall but not when these groups are stratified by academic rank. Given that AA neurosurgeons comprise more junior faculty, it is expected that their academic accomplishments will increase as more enter academic practice and current neurosurgeons advance into more senior positions.

"Top 20" residency-trained academic orthopaedic surgeons have higher academic productivity and funding in their careers.

"Top 20" status on Doximity, an online networking service for medical professionals, is an indicator of the reputation of a residency program. The study assesses how training at a Top 20 (T20) orthopaedic residency program impacts career productivity and funding. Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database was used in 2022 to identify active orthopaedic residency programs. Demographic and training data was collected for each orthopaedic surgeon using institutional websites and Doximity. The Residency Navigator feature on Doximity was used to rank residency programs by "reputation." Programs were categorized as either T20 or non-T20. The relative citation ratio (RCR) was calculated using the NIH iCite tool and Hirsch index (h-index) was calculated using Scopus. Industry funding was collected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Program (CMS) for all available years (2014-2020). A total of 2812 academic orthopaedic surgeons were included in the study. Among academic orthopaedic surgeons in the United States, T20 trained orthopedists had more publications and citations (p < 0.001), along with higher h-indices (p < 0.001), RCR (p < 0.001), and industry funding (p = 0.043). Additionally, T20 trained orthopedists were 1.375 times more likely to obtain professor status (95% confidence interval: 1.150-1.645, p < 0.001). Even after propensity-matched analysis, T20 trained orthopedists maintained these differences. Training at a T20 residency program is associated with promotion, productivity, and funding. These findings are especially of concern to medical students who must consider the importance of a residency program's reputation when deciding where to apply for residency.

Bibliometric Indices As Indicators of Research Output: Analyzing Anesthesiologists as a Paradigm for Surgical Disciplines.

Anesthesiology is one of the increasingly competitive surgical specialties with a growing emphasis on scholarly activity. A metric of productivity and citation influence, the Hirsch index (h-index), can help identify mentors capable of guiding postgraduate trainees toward successful academic achievements. This study sought to determine associations between h-indices or m-quotients and manuscript publication in anesthesiology. Using the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) website, accepted abstracts from the ASA Annual Meetings from 2019 to 2021 were screened (n=2146). The first author (FAHi) and senior author (SAHi) h-indices, as well as the first author (FAMq) and senior author (SAMq) m-quotients, were collected for each abstract using the Scopus database. Whether an accepted abstract was subsequently published as a manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal was also noted, along with the number of days between ASA presentation and publication date. Linear and logistic regression models were used for statistical analyses. In total, 348 (34.4%) of the 1012 eligible abstracts were published as manuscripts. Mean FAHi, SAHi, FAMq, and SAMq, were significantly higher for accepted ASA abstracts that were later published in peer-reviewed journals compared to accepted abstracts that were not published (p<0.001). FAHi, SAHi, FAMq, and SAMq had significant positive associations with odds of publication (p=0.002; p<0.001; p=0.006; p<0.001, respectively). There was no statistical significance between FAHi, SAHi, FAMq, or SAMq and the number of days between ASA presentation and publication. Our study uniquely demonstrates the positive, direct association between h-indices and m-quotients with the probability of publication in anesthesiology. We propose that bibliometric indices are adapted to provide a refined perspective of a physician-scientist's capabilities. Postgraduate trainees can use these indices to discern research mentors primed to foster academic excellence.

hglobal-Index: A Novel Author-Level Measure of the Diffusion of Scientific Ideas Among High-, Low-, and Middle-Income Countries.

OBJECTIVE: To describe an intuitive and useful method for measuring the global impact of a medical scholar's research ideas by examining cross-border citations (CBCs) of peer-reviewed neurosurgical publications. METHODS: Publication and citation data for a random sample of the top 50 most academically productive neurosurgeons were obtained from Scopus Application Programming Interface. We characterized an author-level global impact index analogous to the widely used h-index, the hglobal-index, defined as the number of published peer-reviewed manuscripts with at least the same number of CBCs. To uncover socioeconomic insights, we explored the hglobal-index for high-, middle-, and low-income countries. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) number of publications and CBCs were 144 (62-255) and 2704 (959-5325), respectively. The median (interquartile range) h-index and hglobal-index were 42 (23-61) and 32 (17-38), respectively. Compared with neurosurgeons in the random sample, the 3 global neurosurgeons had the highest hglobal-indices in low-income countries at 17, 13, and 9, despite below-average h-index scores of 33, 38, and 19, respectively. CONCLUSION: This intuitive update to the h-index uses CBCs to measure the global impact of scientific research. The hglobal-index may provide insight into global diffusion of medical ideas, which can be used for social science research, author self-assessment, and academic promotion.