The publication impact of the first 100 THOR Network publications by bibliometric and social network analyses.

BACKGROUND: A specialized international multidisciplinary group of investigators wanted to determine the performance and impact of publications presented at an annual conference over a 6 year period. Specifically, the group wanted to know if the influence of the conference publications extended beyond conference publication authors and attendees. Bibliometric methods and network analyses were used to evaluate the performance and impact of 100 peer-reviewed publications presented at the Trauma Hemostasis and Oxygenation Research (THOR) Network Remote Damage Control Resuscitation (RCDR) Symposia from 2012 to 2017 (published 2013-2018). Further analysis was performed on the affiliations of conference attendees who attended from the years of 2012 to 2017. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This project used normative and relative bibliometric measures and social network analysis to evaluate the performance and impact of 100 peer-reviewed publications presented at the Trauma Hemostasis and Oxygenation Research (THOR) Network RDCR Symposia from 2012 to 2017. Publication and citation data were from Elsevier Scopus, a bibliographic citation database. Metrics from Elsevier SciVal were selected for the project to normalize for group size, year of publication, and document type. A six-year period of publications presented at the Symposia, published from 2013 to 2018, was selected for analysis. The publication and citation data were further analyzed using Elsevier SciVal and the iCite database from the National Institutes of Health Office of Portfolio Analysis. Sci2, VOSviewer, and Gephi were used for social network analyses and visualization. RESULTS: The 100 publications presented at the Trauma Hemostasis and Oxygenation Research (THOR) Network Remote Damage Control Resuscitation (RCDR) Symposia from 2012 to 2017 demonstrate reach and influence beyond the authors of the THOR publications or the THOR attendees. Citations to the THOR publications were published in 10 languages and 313 unique journals, with author affiliations from 62 countries. Citation metrics for the THOR publications exceed global averages with 65% of the THOR publications being in the 25% citation percentiles. When benchmarking the THOR publications using six homogenous comparator groups, the THOR publications demonstrate higher citation metrics than any of the comparator groups with more citations per publication, a higher average of cited publications, higher FWCI and outputs in the top citation percentiles among the six groups. The Office of Portfolio Analysis (OPA) iCite database was used to calculate potential to translate for the THOR publications with 57 of the THOR publications cited by clinical articles with an average approximate potential to translate score of 65.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The value of international groups with sharing of research and knowledge are instrumental in enhancing the uptake for best practices for in medicine and treatment of hemorrhagic shock resuscitation. The use of bibliometric methods and network analyses, along with benchmarking, demonstrated reach and impact beyond the THOR Network. Limitations include use of a single source for analysis of publication and citation; and that publication data alone does not provide a full overview of research performance. Despite these limitations, bibliometric methods, social network analyses, and benchmarking can help centers better understand their impact.

Gender Imbalance at Academic Plastic Surgery Meetings.

BACKGROUND: Participation in scientific meetings yields multiple benefits, yet participation opportunities may not be equally afforded to men and women. The authors' primary goal was to evaluate the representation of men and women at five major academic plastic surgery meetings in 2017. Secondarily, the authors used bibliometric data to compare academic productivity between male and female physician invited speakers or moderators. METHODS: The authors compiled information regarding male and female invited speakers from meeting programs. Bibliometric data (h-index, m-value) and metrics of academic productivity (numbers of career publications, publications in 2015 to 2016, career peer-reviewed publications, first and senior author publications) for invited speakers were extracted from Scopus and analyzed. RESULTS: There were 282 academic physician invited speakers at the five 2017 meetings. Women constituted 14.5 percent. Univariate analysis showed no differences in h-index, m-value, or numbers of total career publications or first and last author publications at the assistant and associate professor ranks, but higher values for men at the professor level. A model of academic rank based on bibliometric and demographic variables showed male gender significantly associated with increased probability of holding a professor title, even when controlling for academic achievement markers (OR, 2.17; 95 percent CI, 1.61 to 2.92). CONCLUSIONS: Although the impact of women's published work was no different than that of men among junior and midcareer faculty, women constitute a minority of invited speakers at academic plastic surgery meetings. Sponsorship is imperative for achieving gender balance within plastic surgery and to ultimately create more diverse and effective teams to improve patient care.

Impact of Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR Scholarships on Careers of Recipients in Emergency Medicine and on Development of Geriatric Emergency Medicine.

BACKGROUND: The Jahnigen Career Development Awards program was launched in 2002 with private funding and transformed into the Grants for Early Medical/Surgical Specialists' Transition to Aging Research (GEMSSTAR) program in 2011 through support from the National Institute on Aging and medical specialty professional societies. The Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR program has provided grants to early career physician-scientists from 10 surgical and related medical specialties to initiate and sustain research careers in the geriatric aspect of their discipline. From 2002 to 2016, there were 20 Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR recipients in emergency medicine (EM). The goal of this investigation was to examine the impact of Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR awards on careers of EM recipients and on development of academic geriatric EM. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of the 20 EM recipients from 2002 to 2016 and analyzed their academic productivity, research impact, career trajectory, and contributions to geriatric EM since receiving the award. RESULTS: All 20 Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR scholars completed the survey. Scholars have published a median of 33 peer-reviewed articles (interquartile range [IQR] = 10-97) since the award, with median annual publication rates of 4.5 (IQR = 1.6-7.0). All scholars had h-indices of 6 or more, with a median of 18 (IQR = 9-28). Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR scholars have served as principal investigator (PI) or co-PI on 126 grants since their award, with 90% having served as PI on at least one additional grant and 30% having received National Institutes of Health Career Development Awards. All scholars reported believing that the Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR was very helpful or helpful for career progress. Most (85%) reported ongoing contributions to geriatric EM in research, education, or administration. CONCLUSIONS: After the Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR award, EM scholars have been highly academically productive and successful, and the award has been instrumental in their career development. Awardees have been critical to the development of geriatric EM.

Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries.

Objective: The paper provides a review of current practices related to evaluation support services reported by seven biomedical and research libraries. Methods: A group of seven libraries from the United States and Canada described their experiences with establishing evaluation support services at their libraries. A questionnaire was distributed among the libraries to elicit information as to program development, service and staffing models, campus partnerships, training, products such as tools and reports, and resources used for evaluation support services. The libraries also reported interesting projects, lessons learned, and future plans. Results: The seven libraries profiled in this paper report a variety of service models in providing evaluation support services to meet the needs of campus stakeholders. The service models range from research center cores, partnerships with research groups, and library programs with staff dedicated to evaluation support services. A variety of products and services were described such as an automated tool to develop rank-based metrics, consultation on appropriate metrics to use for evaluation, customized publication and citation reports, resource guides, classes and training, and others. Implementing these services has allowed the libraries to expand their roles on campus and to contribute more directly to the research missions of their institutions. Conclusions: Libraries can leverage a variety of evaluation support services as an opportunity to successfully meet an array of challenges confronting the biomedical research community, including robust efforts to report and demonstrate tangible and meaningful outcomes of biomedical research and clinical care. These services represent a transformative direction that can be emulated by other biomedical and research libraries.

The Translational Science Benefits Model: A New Framework for Assessing the Health and Societal Benefits of Clinical and Translational Sciences.

We report the development of the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM), a framework designed to support institutional assessment of clinical and translational research outcomes to measure clinical and community health impacts beyond bibliometric measures. The TSBM includes 30 specific and potentially measurable indicators that reflect benefits that accrue from clinical and translational science research such as products, system characteristics, or activities. Development of the TSBM was based on literature review, a modified Delphi method, and in-house expert panel feedback. Three case studies illustrate the feasibility and face validity of the TSBM for identification of clinical and community health impacts that result from translational science activities. Future plans for the TSBM include further pilot testing and a resource library that will be freely available for evaluators, translational scientists, and academic institutions who wish to implement the TSBM framework in their own evaluation efforts.

Breaking down silos: mapping growth of cross-disciplinary collaboration in a translational science initiative.

The importance of transdisciplinary collaboration is growing, though not much is known about how to measure collaboration patterns. The purpose of this paper is to present multiple ways of mapping and evaluating the growth of cross-disciplinary partnerships over time. Social network analysis was used to examine the impact of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) on collaboration patterns. Grant submissions from 2007 through 2010 and publications from 2007 through 2011 of Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) members were examined. A Cohort Model examining the first-year ICTS members demonstrated an overall increase in collaborations on grants and publications, as well as an increase in cross-discipline collaboration as compared to within-discipline. A Growth Model that included additional members over time demonstrated the same pattern for grant submissions, but a decrease in cross-discipline collaboration as compared to within-discipline collaboration for publications. ICTS members generally became more cross-disciplinary in their collaborations during the CTSA. The exception of publications for the Growth Model may be due to the time lag between funding and publication, as well as pressure for younger scientists to publish in their own fields. Network analysis serves as a valuable tool for evaluating changes in scientific collaboration.

Measuring academic productivity and changing definitions of scientific impact.

This manuscript provides a brief overview of the history of communication of scientific research and reporting of scientific research impact outcomes. Current day practices are outlined along with examples of how organizations and libraries are providing tools to evaluate and document the impact of scientific research to provide a meaningful narrative suitable for a variety of purposes and audiences.

Using publication metrics to highlight academic productivity and research impact.

This article provides a broad overview of widely available measures of academic productivity and impact using publication data and highlights uses of these metrics for various purposes. Metrics based on publication data include measures such as number of publications, number of citations, the journal impact factor score, and the h-index, as well as emerging metrics based on document-level metrics. Publication metrics can be used for a variety of purposes for tenure and promotion, grant applications and renewal reports, benchmarking, recruiting efforts, and administrative purposes for departmental or university performance reports. The authors also highlight practical applications of measuring and reporting academic productivity and impact to emphasize and promote individual investigators, grant applications, or department output.

Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine (BEEM) rater scores correlate with publications' future citations.

BACKGROUND: The "BEEM" (best evidence in emergency medicine) rater scale was created for emergency physicians (EPs) to evaluate the physician-derived clinical relevance score of recently published, emergency medicine (EM)-related studies. BEEM therefore is designed to help make EPs aware of studies most likely to confirm or change current clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to validate the BEEM rater score as a predictor of literature citation, using a bibliometric construct of clinical relevance to EM based on author-, document-, and journal-level measures (first and last author h-indices, number of authors including corporate and group authors, citations from date of publication to 2011, and journal impact factor scores) and study characteristics (design, category, and sample size). METHODS: Each month from 2007 through 2012, approximately 200 EPs from around the world voluntarily reviewed the titles and conclusions of recently published EM-related studies identified by BEEM faculty via the McMaster Health Information Research Unit. Using the BEEM rater scale, a reliable seven-item instrument that evaluates the clinical relevance of studies, raters independently assigned BEEM scores to approximately 10 to 20 articles each month. Two investigators independently abstracted the bibliometric indices for these articles. A citation rate for each article was calculated by dividing the Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS) total citation count by the number of years in publication. BEEM rater scores were correlated with the citation rate using Spearman's rho. The performance of the BEEM rater score was assessed for each article using negative binomial regression with composite citation count as the criterion standard, while controlling for other independent bibliometric variables in three models. RESULTS: The BEEM raters evaluated 605 articles with a mean (±SD) BEEM score of 3.84 (±0.7) and a median BEEM score of 3.85 (interquartile range = 3.38 to 4.30). Articles were primarily therapeutic (59%) and diagnostic (27%), with various designs, including 37% systematic reviews, 32% randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 30% observational designs. The citation rate and BEEM rater score correlated positively (0.144), while the BEEM rater score and the Journal Citation Report (JCR) impact factor score were minimally correlated (0.053). In the first model, the BEEM rater score significantly predicted WoS citation rate (p < 0.0001) with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.106 to 1.402). In subsequent models adjusting for the JCR impact factor score, the h-indices of the first and last authors, number of authors, and study design, the BEEM rater score was not significant (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, the BEEM rater score is the only known measure of clinical relevance. It has a high interrater reliability and face validity and correlates with future citations. Future research should assess this instrument against alternative constructs of clinical relevance.

Beyond citation analysis: a model for assessment of research impact.

QUESTION: Is there a means of assessing research impact beyond citation analysis? SETTING: The case study took place at the Washington University School of Medicine Becker Medical Library. METHOD: This case study analyzed the research study process to identify indicators beyond citation count that demonstrate research impact. MAIN RESULTS: The authors discovered a number of indicators that can be documented for assessment of research impact, as well as resources to locate evidence of impact. As a result of the project, the authors developed a model for assessment of research impact, the Becker Medical Library Model for Assessment of Research. CONCLUSION: Assessment of research impact using traditional citation analysis alone is not a sufficient tool for assessing the impact of research findings, and it is not predictive of subsequent clinical applications resulting in meaningful health outcomes. The Becker Model can be used by both researchers and librarians to document research impact to supplement citation analysis.

19th-century camouflaged mechanical hearing devices.

HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this review is to present 19th century mechanical hearing devices that were designed for concealment or camouflage. BACKGROUND: Extensive literature, past and current, along with museum catalogs, trade catalogs, and advertisements, were examined to identify mechanical devices designed for concealment. METHODS: Several mechanical devices were selected for acoustic gain measurements. Measurements were made in an anechoic chamber using a Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research fitted with a Zwislocki coupler and a pressure microphone in the right ear. One-third-octave bands of noise were presented via a KLH Model 6 loudspeaker placed at a distance of 2.23 m on-axis. The sound level at the ear of the Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research was recorded with and without the device in place. RESULTS: A wide variety of 19th century hearing devices designed for concealment were identified. Some hearing devices, such as fans, parasols, lorgnettes, water canteens, walking sticks, chairs/thrones, hats, and books, were concealed within everyday items. Other hearing devices, such as artificial conchae, bouquet holders, and hair and beard receptors, wereconcealed on the person. The insertion gain of a representative concealed device, the Aurolese Phone, averaged approximately 3.5 dB in the range of frequencies most relevant for speech communication. CONCLUSIONS: The ingenuity behind the design of 19th century mechanical hearing devices created for concealment or camouflage is to be commended. For the Aurolese Phone, some acoustic benefit was possible despite design constraints imposed by its concealed nature.