An analysis of scholarly productivity in United States academic anaesthesiologists by citation bibliometrics

Summary The h‐index is used to evaluate scholarly productivity in academic medicine, but has not been extensively used in anaesthesia. We analysed the publications, citations, citations per publication and h‐index from 1996 to date using the Scopus® database for 1630 (1120 men, 510 women) for facult...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Anaesthesia 2011-10, Vol.66 (10), p.873-878
Main Authors: Pagel, P. S., Hudetz, J. A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic Medical Centers
Adult
Aged
Anesthesia
Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy
Anesthesiology - education
Anesthesiology - manpower
Anesthesiology - statistics & numerical data
Bibliometrics
Biological and medical sciences
Efficiency
Faculty, Medical
Female
Humans
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Publishing
Research Support as Topic
Sex Factors
United States
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary The h‐index is used to evaluate scholarly productivity in academic medicine, but has not been extensively used in anaesthesia. We analysed the publications, citations, citations per publication and h‐index from 1996 to date using the Scopus® database for 1630 (1120 men, 510 women) for faculty members from 24 randomly selected US academic anaesthesiology departments The median (interquartile range [range]) h‐index of US academic anaesthesiologists was 1 [0–5 (0–44)] with 3 [0–18 (0–398)] total publications, 24 [0–187 (0–8515)] total citations, and 5 [0–14 (0–252)] citations per publication. Faculty members in departments with National Institutes of Health funding were more productive than colleagues in departments with little or no government funding. The h‐index increased significantly between successive academic ranks concomitant with increases in the number of publications and total citations. Men had higher median h‐index than women concomitant with more publications and citations, but the number of citations per publication was similar between groups. Our results suggest that h‐index is a reasonable indicator of scholarly productivity in anaesthesia. The results may help comparisons of academic productivity across countries and may be used to assess whether new initiatives designed to reverse recent declines in academic anaesthetic are working. You can respond to this article at http://www.anaesthesiacorrespondence.com
ISSN:0003-2409
1365-2044
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06860.x