Search

Introduction: Academic productivity, a key feature of academic neurosurgery, has been linked to academic rank, subspecialty, and institutional rank. Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) has emerged as a new metric of scholarly output that can make field-normalized comparisons between researchers, a feature unavailable in prior metrics such as h-index. Here we evaluate the influence of academic rank and neurosurgical subspecialties on RCR scores., Methods: We identified 1640 academic neurosurgeons from 115 ACGME-accredited programs in the United States, along with their neurosurgical specialty and demographic information, using publicly available data. Mean RCR (m-RCR) and weighted RCR (w-RCR) for each neurosurgeon were queried from the iCite database, which included publications from 2002-2020. m-RCR and w-RCR scores were compared across subspecialties and academic rank using multivariable regression while controlling for demographic factors., Results: Multivariable analysis indicated that academic neurosurgeons in general neurosurgery (P = 0.039) and pediatric neurosurgery (P = 0.003) had lower m-RCR scores than their peers in other subspecialties. w-RCR did not differ significantly among subspecialties. Higher academic rank was associated with increased m-RCR (P < 0.05) and w-RCR scores (P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Professors have a higher m-RCR score relative to assistant professors, while general and pediatric neurosurgery were linked to lower m-RCR values. Although neurosurgical subspecialty choice did not influence w-RCR, a higher w-RCR score corresponded to a higher academic rank. Overall, the RCR metric can be utilized for field-normalized comparisons of faculty who differ in academic rank and subspecialty., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study analyzed the linguistic differences in letters of recommendation (LORs) for general surgery residency applicants written by authors of various academic ranks. Given that many general surgery residency programs require a LOR from the Chair of surgery, this study also examined whether LORs written by the Chair demonstrate linguistic differences to support this practice., Design: A single institution, retrospective review analyzed LORs from two application cycles of general surgery residency applicants who were selected for interview at a large academic institution. Word count (WC) and linguistic characteristics of LORs were analyzed with a previously developed institution-specific dictionary using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software (LIWC2015; Pennebaker Conglomerates, Inc., Austin, Texas). WC and linguistic characteristics of LORs reported as frequencies of terms within twenty-four categories were examined based on the letter authors' academic rank. Further examination compared LORs written by a Chair of surgery with those written by non-Chairs., Setting: A single large, Midwestern academic general surgery residency program PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred and sixty-five letters of recommendation received during two interview cycles were included for analysis., Results: A total of 465 LORs written by assistant (n = 82), associate (n = 94), and full professors (n = 289) were included in the study. No statistically significant difference was noted in the WC of LORs based on the letter writers' academic ranks (p = 0.95). Assistant professors utilized grindstone, communal, and technical skill terms with higher frequencies compared to associate professors and full professors. LORs written by assistant professors demonstrated the highest authentic variable score followed by associate professors then full professors (4.94, 3.92, 3.28, p < 0.01). LORs written by Chairs (n = 128) had lower authentic variable scores compared to LORs written by non-Chairs (n = 337; 2.71 vs. 3.91, p = 0.001). Only 50 (39%) LORs written by Chairs indicated working directly with the applicant, and sub-group analysis demonstrated a higher authentic variable score in this group compared with LORs written by Chairs who did not indicate having worked directly with the applicant (3.51 vs. 2.5, p = 0.01)., Conclusions: Linguistic analysis of LORs for general surgery residency applicants demonstrated minor yet statistically significant differences based on the author's academic rank. If applicants can obtain linguistically similar LORs from surgeons of any academic rank, but less authentic LORs from writers with higher academic ranks, these LORs may be less valuable for the residency programs when evaluating applicants. Based on the subgroup analysis, less than 40% of Chair LORs indicated that the Chair worked directly with the applicant, calling into question the utility of the Chair LORs as meaningful evaluation of applicants. Further study to compare LORs of applicants selected and not selected for interview may add additional insight into linguistic differences in LORs written by authors of different academic ranks., (Copyright © 2021 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate gender and racial profiles of US academic radiology faculty., Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of the American Association of Medical College database of radiology faculty members from 2006 to 2017 by academic rank, chair position, race or ethnicity, and gender. The data were described with annual proportions and average annual counts and fit to a Poisson regression model. Comparison data were taken from American Association of Medical College on matriculants at US medical schools and from ACGME on radiology residents., Results: Women increased significantly in the ranks of professor by 4.5%, associate professor by 4.8%, and assistant professor by 4.8% (P < .05). Asian and multiple race non-Hispanic radiologists increased in the rank of professor by 5.9% and 3.1%, respectively (P < .05). Among department chairs, only women and Asian faculty increased by 6.4% and 7.5%, respectively (P < .05). The proportion of women chairs increased from 10.0% (19 of 191) in 2006 to 17.4% (39 of 224) in 2017. Black and Hispanic chairs collectively represented less than 10% of the total chairs every year., Discussion: The significant percent annual increase in women faculty in academic ranks and chair positions suggests that the radiology faculty is becoming more diverse. However, the decreasing proportion of women with increasing academic ranks within each year of the study period suggests attrition or lack of promotion of women radiology faculty. The disparity in black and Hispanic faculty members and chairs suggests that emphasis should continue to be placed on tailored recruitment., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Previous studies have identified significant gender discrepancies in grant funding, leadership positions, and publication impact in surgical subspecialties. We investigated whether these discrepancies were also present in academic vascular surgery., Methods: Academic websites from institutions with vascular surgery training programs were queried to identify academic faculty, and leadership positions were noted. H-index, number of citations, and total number of publications were obtained from Scopus and PubMed. Grant funding amounts and awards data were obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Industry funding amount was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Nonsurgical physicians and support staff were excluded from this analysis., Results: We identified 177 female faculty (18.6%) and 774 male faculty (81.4%). A total of 41 (23.2%) female surgeons held leadership positions within their institutions compared with 254 (32.9%) male surgeons (P = .009). Female surgeons held the rank of assistant professor 50.3% of the time in contrast to 33.9% of men (P < .001). The rank of associate professor was held at similar rates, 25.4% vs 20.7% (P = .187), respectively. Fewer women than men held the full professor rank, 10.7% compared with 26.2% (P < .001). Similarly, women held leadership positions less often than men, including division chief (6.8% vs 13.7%; P < .012) and vice chair of surgery (0% vs 2.2%; P < .047), but held more positions as vice dean of surgery (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037) and chief executive officer (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037). Scientific contributions based on the number of each surgeon's publications were found to be statistically different between men and women. Women had an average of 42.3 publications compared with 64.8 for men (P < .001). Female vascular surgeons were cited an average of 655.2 times, less than half the average citations of their male counterparts with 1387 citations (P < .001). The average H-index was 9.5 for female vascular surgeons compared with 13.7 for male vascular surgeons (P < .001). Correcting for years since initial board certification, women had a higher H-index per year in practice (1.32 vs 1.02; P = .005). Female vascular surgeons were more likely to have received NIH grants than their male colleagues (9.6% vs 4.0%; P = .017). Although substantial, the average value of NIH grants awarded was not statistically significant between men and women, with men on average receiving $915,590.74 ($199,119.00-$2,910,600.00) and women receiving $707,205.35 ($61,612.00-$4,857,220.00; P = .416). There was no difference in the distribution of Society for Vascular Surgery seed grants to women and men since 2007. Industry payments made publicly available according to the Sunshine Act for the year 2018 were also compared, and female vascular surgeons received an average of $2155.28 compared with their male counterparts, who received almost four times as much at $8452.43 (P < .001)., Conclusions: Although there is certainly improved representation of women in vascular surgery compared with several decades ago, a discrepancy still persists. Women tend to have more grants than men and receive less in industry payments, but they hold fewer leadership positions, do not publish as frequently, and are cited less than their male counterparts. Further investigation should be aimed at identifying the causes of gender disparity and systemic barriers to gender equity in academic vascular surgery., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the association between the Hirsch index (a measure of publications and citations) and academic rank among hand surgeons., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of full-time academic hand surgeons within Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved hand surgery fellowship programs in the United States and Canada. The study variables were classified as bibliometric (h-index, I-10 index, total number of publications, total number of citations, maximum number of citations for a single work) and demographics (gender, training factors). The outcome was academic rank (instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor, endowed professor). Descriptive, bivariate, and multiple regression statistics were computed., Results: The sample was composed of 366 full-time academic hand surgeons; 86% were male and 98% had formal hand surgery fellowship training. The mean time since completion of surgical training was 17 ± 11 years. The distribution of primary faculty appointments was orthopedic surgery (70%) and plastic surgery (30%). Two hundred fifty surgeons (68%) were members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. The mean h-index was 10.2 ± 9.9 and was strongly correlated with academic rank. Gender was not associated with academic rank. Distribution of academic ranks was as follows: instructor (4%), assistant professor (28%), associate professor (40%), professor (22%), and endowed professor (5%). The h-index, years since completion of training, and American Society for Surgery of the Hand membership were associated with academic rank. The h-index had a high sensitivity and specificity for predicting academic rank., Conclusions: The h-index is a reliable tool for quantitatively assessing research productivity and should be considered for use in academic hand surgery., Clinical Relevance: When evaluating candidates for academic promotion in hand surgery, the h-index is a potentially valuable tool for assessing research productivity and impact., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: An increasing number of neurological surgeons have sought fellowship training in recent years, and previous analyses have suggested these practitioners are more likely to pursue an academic career. Scholarly productivity is a key component in academic advancement., Objective: We used the h-index to evaluate whether fellowship training impacts research productivity and whether any differences exist in scholarly output among practitioners in the various neurosurgical subspecialties., Methods: Online listings from academic neurological surgery departments were used to organize faculty by academic rank and fellowship training. Using the Scopus database, we calculated the h-index for 869 full-time clinical faculty., Results: Mean h-index did not differ between fellowship- and nonfellowship-trained practitioners (h = 12.6 vs. 13.0, P = 0.96). When organized by academic rank, the difference between h-indices of those who completed fellowships was substantially greater at all ranks, with statistical significance at the associate professor rank (P = 0.003). Upon further examination by individual subspecialties, significant differences in relative research impact were noted (P < 0.0001). The stereotactic and functional fellowship was found to have the greatest mean h-index score, whereas the trauma/critical care fellowship had the lowest., Conclusion: No significant difference existed between the mean h-index scores of neurological surgeons who completed fellowships and those who did not. However, when stratified by academic rank, a trend was observed showing greater mean h-index scores for those who completed fellowships. This trend persists across nearly all subspecialties. Overall, being a senior faculty member corresponds with a greater h-index score, regardless of whether a fellowship was completed., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)