Search

Professional society membership enhances career development and productivity by offering opportunities for networking and learning about recent advances in the field. The quality and contribution of such societies can be measured in part through the academic productivity, career status, and funding success rates of their members. Here, using Scopus, NIH RePORTER, and departmental websites, we compare characteristics of the Shock Society membership to those of the top 55 NIH-funded American university and hospital-based departments of surgery. Shock Society members' mean number of publications, citations and H-indices were all significantly higher than those of non-members in surgery departments (P < 0.001). A higher percentage of members also have received funding from the NIH (42.5% vs. 18.5%, P < 0.001). Regression analysis indicated that members were more likely to have NIH funding compared with non-members (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.12-1.916). Trauma surgeons belonging to the Shock Society had a higher number of publications and greater NIH funding than those who did not (130.4 vs. 42.7, P < 0.001; 40.4% vs. 8.5%, P < 0.001). Aggregate academic metrics from the Shock Society were superior to those of the Association for Academic Surgery and generally for the Society of University Surgeons as well. These data indicate that the Shock Society represents a highly academic and productive group of investigators. For surgery faculty, membership is associated with greater academic productivity and career advancement. While it is difficult to ascribe causation, certainly the Shock Society might positively influence careers for its members.

BACKGROUND There is an increased push for plastic surgery units in the United States to become independent departments administered autonomously rather than as divisions of a multispecialty surgery department. The purpose of this research was to determine whether there are any quantifiable differences in the academic performance of departments versus divisions. METHODS Using a list of the plastic surgery units affiliated with the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons, unit Web sites were queried for departmental status and to obtain a list of affiliated faculty. Academic productivity was then quantified using the SCOPUS database. National Institutes of Health funding was determined through the Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database. RESULTS Plastic surgery departments were comparable to divisions in academic productivity, evidenced by a similar number of publications per faculty (38.9 versus 38.7; p = 0.94), number of citations per faculty (692 versus 761; p = 0.64), H-indices (9.9 versus 9.9; p = 0.99), and National Institutes of Health grants (3.25 versus 2.84; p = 0.80), including RO1 grants (1.33 versus 0.84; p = 0.53). There was a trend for departments to have a more equitable male-to-female ratio (2.8 versus 4.1; p = 0.06), and departments trained a greater number of integrated plastic surgery residents (9.0 versus 5.28; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION This study demonstrates that the academic performance of independent plastic surgery departments is generally similar to divisions, but with nuanced distinctions.