Relative Value of Adapted Novel Bibliometrics in Evaluating Surgical Academic Impact and Reach.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Hirsch index, often used to assess research impact, suffers from questionable validity within the context of General Surgery, and consequently adapted bibliometrics and altmetrics have emerged, including the r-index, m-index, g-index and i10-index. This study aimed to assess the relative value of these novel bibliometrics in a single UK Deanery General Surgical Consultant cohort. METHOD: Five indices (h, r, m, g and i10) and altmetric scores (AS) were calculated for 151 general surgical consultants in a UK Deanery. Indices and AS were calculated from publication data via the Scopus search engine with assessment of construct validity and reliability. RESULTS: The median number of publications, h-index, r-index, m-index, g-index and i10-index were 13 (range 0-389), 5 (range 0-63), 5.2 (range 0-64.8), 0.33 (range 0-1.5), 10 (range 0-125) and 4 (range 0-245), respectively. Correlation coefficients of r-index, m-index, g-index and i10-index with h-index were 0.913 (p < 0.001), 0.716 (p < 0.001), 0.961 (p < 0.001) and 0.939 (p < 0.001), respectively. Significant variance was observed when the cohort was ranked by individual bibliometric measures; the median ranking shifts were r-index - 2 (- 46 to + 23); m-index - 6.5 (- 53 to + 22); g-index - 0.5 (- 24 to + 13); and i10-index 0 (- 8 to + 11), respectively (p < 0.001). The median altmetric score and AS index were 0 (range 0-225.5) and 1 (range 0-10), respectively; AS index correlated strongly with h-index (correlation coefficient 0.390, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adapted bibliometric indices appear to be equally valid measures of evaluating academic productivity, impact and reach.