Effect of corticosteroids on sperm antibody concentration in different biological fluids and on pregnancy outcome in immunologic infertility

Z. Ulčová-Gallová,Bouse,Z. Rokyta,K. Krizanovská

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-10611

2000-09-01

Zentralblatt für Gynäkologie

Abstract:Objective: Material and methods: Results: Conclusion: Fragestellung: Material und Methoden: Ergebnisse: Schlußfolgerung:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Is the h-Index Enough? A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of 871 Academic Plastic Surgeons and Their Departments/Divisions

Elijah M. Persad-Paisley,Jay R. Gopal,Jesse E. Menville,Navya Baranwal,Damon R. T. McIntire,Victoria G. Zeyl,Loree K. Kalliainen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0000000000003775

2024-02-01

Annals of Plastic Surgery

Abstract:Background In plastic surgery academia, research output is heavily used as a metric of accreditation, from assessing residency applicants to evaluating faculty for promotion. The h index, defined as an author's h papers with at least h citations, is commonly used as a measure of academic success. However, the index itself disfavors junior researchers, favors publication quantity, and discounts highly cited works. Given the importance of bibliometrics within plastic surgery, there is a paramount need to adopt additional metrics to measure research productivity. The authors sought to validate the use of time-independent bibliometrics to complement the h index in measuring citation impact. Methods The genders and academic titles of plastic surgeons affiliated with US plastic surgery programs were recorded. Author publications were retrieved from Scopus. Bibliometrics software was used to calculate the following metrics per surgeon: h index, e index, and g index. Time-adjusted versions of these indices were used to correct for the number of years since first publication. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) are reported. Departmental ranks were determined using the cumulative sum of time-corrected indices and compared with Doximity departmental research rankings. P < 0.05 was deemed significant. Results Indices were calculated for 871 academic plastic surgeons in 85 departments/divisions. Men had statistically greater h index (median, 13.0 [IQR, 7.0–21.0] vs 6.0 [IQR, 3.0–13]; P < 0.001), e index (18.3 [IQR, 10.0–28.7] vs 11.1 [IQR, 5.5–18.4]; P < 0.001), and g index (23.0 [IQR, 11.0–39.0] vs 11.0 [IQR, 5.0–22.0]; P < 0.001) than women. Professors had the highest median time-uncorrected indices. After adjusting for the number of years since an author's first publication, there were no significant differences in m quotient (men: 0.66 [IQR, 0.40–0.98] vs women: 0.57 [IQR, 0.33–0.90]; P = 0.05) and ec index (men: 0.93 [IQR, 0.62–1.3] vs women: 0.87 [IQR, 0.50–1.3]; P = 0.08) between genders. Departmental chairs had significantly higher indices than other faculty after correcting for time. The calculated program rankings were low to moderately correlated with that of Doximity (correlation coefficient τ = 0.49 [95% confidence interval, 0.37–0.59; P < 0.001]). Conclusions Men and women have statistically similar citation patterns after correcting for the time. Citation differences between academic levels are less pronounced when controlling for time, suggesting comparable research quality between academic roles.

surgery
hglobal-index: a novel author-level measure of the diffusion of scientific ideas among high-, low-, and middle-income countries

Cyrus Elahi,Kelly A. Shaftel,Tyler S. Cole,João Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci,Andrew S. Little

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2024.01.130

IF: 2.21

2024-01-31

World Neurosurgery

Abstract:Objective To describe an intuitive and useful method for measuring the global impact of a medical scholar's research ideas by examining cross-border citations (CBCs) of peer-reviewed neurosurgical publications. Methods Publication and citation data for a random sample of the top 50 most academically productive neurosurgeons were obtained from Scopus Application Programming Interface. We characterized an author-level global impact index analogous to the widely used h -index, the h global -index, defined as the number of published peer-reviewed manuscripts with at least the same number of CBCs. To uncover socioeconomic insights, we explored the h global -index for high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Results The median (interquartile range) number of publications and CBCs were 144 (62–255) and 2704 (959–5325), respectively. The median (interquartile range) h -index and h global -index were 42 (23–61) and 32 (17–38), respectively. Compared with neurosurgeons in the random sample, the 3 global neurosurgeons had the highest h global -indices in low-income countries at 17, 13, and 9, despite below-average h -index scores of 33, 38, and 19, respectively. Conclusion This intuitive update to the h -index uses CBCs to measure the global impact of scientific research. The h global -index may provide insight into global diffusion of medical ideas, which can be used for social science research, author self-assessment, and academic promotion.

surgery,clinical neurology
Comment on “In utero gratification behavior in male fetus”

I. Meizner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5000

2017-03-01

Prenatal Diagnosis

Abstract:I read with interest the research letter entitled: ‘In utero gratification behavior in male fetus’ by Rodríguez Fernández and López Ramón y Cajal. Looking at Figure 1 presented in the letter, one would have to conclude that the authors have made one huge error in the interpretation of the pictures presented. Picture no. 1 in Figure 1 represents a grasped normal hand with five fingers. What the authors mark as foreskin is the normal index finger. In picture no. 2 in Figure 1, one can see the flexed hand with five fingers. What the authors mark as meatus is the flexed index finger, a bit drawn backwards. The normal penis and scrotum are clearly visible in this picture, appearing medially to the clenched hand. I have indicated real penile tip and scrotum on a photocopy of picture 2, enclosed herewith. The penis and scrotum are clearly visible also in pictures 3 and 4, where the glans and foreskin indicated in these pictures really represent the index finger. There is neither meatus nor foreskin present in Figure 1. The real scrotum and penis are just in front of our eyes with an adjacent to normal clenched hand. I would recommend turning the three-dimensional image 90° clockwise, thus enabling full visualization of the fetal genitalia. This is easy to perform, because the authors state that they have the four-dimensional rendering.
Elicitation of Broadly Neutralizing Influenza Antibodies in Animals with Previous Influenza Exposure

Chih-Jen Wei,H. Yassine,P. McTamney,J. Gall,J. Whittle,J. Boyington,G. Nabel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3004273

IF: 17.1

2012-08-15

Science Translational Medicine

Abstract:Broadly neutralizing antibodies to influenza can be elicited by vaccination in animals previously infected or immunized by the virus. Stemming the Flu Shot Every year, the influenza virus gets a makeover so remarkable our immune systems barely recognize it. The virus mutates its surface antigens, which make it possible to evade immune attack even in people who have suffered flu in previous years. Yet, some parts of the surface antigen hemagglutinin (HA)—such as the stem region—are critical for infection and thus conserved. Consequently, scientists have targeted this region in strategies to build a universal vaccine. Unfortunately, the lack of widespread natural immunity to the stem region raises red flags about the efficacy of this method: What if previous immunity prevents the induction of broadly protective antibodies? Wei et al. now find that in mice and ferrets, neither previous infection nor previous vaccination prevents the induction of broadly neutralizing antibody responses. The authors primed mice with a DNA vaccine and then boosted with inactive influenza and found that HA stem–directed antibodies were elicited regardless of preexposure route. In ferrets, prime-boost with adenoviral vectors conferred protection against influenza challenge. Indeed, immunogenicity was actually enhanced in animals previously exposed to a divergent flu strain. Although these studies must be translated to humans, the new data suggest that administration of a successful universal flu vaccine won’t be restricted to people who have never before been exposed to the virus. The immune system responds to influenza infection by producing neutralizing antibodies to the viral surface protein, hemagglutinin (HA), which regularly changes its antigenic structure. Antibodies that target the highly conserved stem region of HA neutralize diverse influenza viruses and can be elicited through vaccination in animals and humans. Efforts to develop universal influenza vaccines have focused on strategies to elicit such antibodies; however, the concern has been raised that previous influenza immunity may abrogate the induction of such broadly protective antibodies. We show here that prime-boost immunization can induce broadly neutralizing antibody responses in influenza-immune mice and ferrets that were previously infected or vaccinated. HA stem–directed antibodies were elicited in mice primed with a DNA vaccine and boosted with inactivated vaccine from H1N1 A/New Caledonia/20/1999 (1999 NC) HA regardless of preexposure. Similarly, gene-based vaccination with replication-defective adenovirus 28 (rAd28) and 5 (rAd5) vectors encoding 1999 NC HA elicited stem-directed neutralizing antibodies and conferred protection against unmatched 1934 and 2007 H1N1 virus challenge in influenza-immune ferrets. Indeed, previous exposure to certain strains could enhance immunogenicity: The strongest HA stem–directed immune response was observed in ferrets previously infected with a divergent 1934 H1N1 virus. These findings suggest that broadly neutralizing antibodies against the conserved stem region of HA can be elicited through vaccination despite previous influenza exposure, which supports the feasibility of developing stem-directed universal influenza vaccines for humans.
Exploring Impact and Variability of Research Productivity Among Academic Orthopaedic Leaders

Hassan Farooq,Andrew Gaetano,Krishin Shivdasani,Nickolas Garbis,Dane Salazar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00085

2024-10-03

JBJS Open Access

Abstract:Introduction: Assessing scholarly contributions in academic orthopaedic surgery remains challenging, despite the importance of publication productivity in evaluating academic leaders. The Hirsch (h)-index and its derivative, the m-index, offer objective measures to compare and evaluate publication productivity. The primary aims of this study were to compare h- and m-indices of department chairs and residency program directors of orthopaedic training programs in the United States and assess the association between h-index and program rank. Methods: A publicly available Doximity report was used to identify and rank orthopaedic surgery residency programs in the United States. Internet-based searches of institution-specific websites were performed to confirm current department chairs and residency program directors as of January 2024. H-index data were collected from a publicly available database known as Scopus. The m-index was calculated as the quotient of h-index and years in practice. Gender and years in practice were obtained through available biographies on institution-specific websites. Results: Department chairs had significantly higher h- and m-indices at both the career and 5-year time intervals compared with program directors. Upon subgroup analysis, department chairs and program directors at top-10 ranked programs had significantly higher h- and m-indices compared with the entire population of department chairs and program directors. Linear regression analyses demonstrated a direct linear association between department chair/program director h- and m-indices and program rank. Conclusions: Publication productivity was higher for department chairs than residency program directors. Orthopaedic leaders at top-10 institutions had higher publication productivity compared with those at institutions outside of the top 10, per Doximity rankings. Finally, there is substantial variation in publication productivity of orthopaedic surgeons in leadership roles at academic institutions in the United States. Clinical relevance: This study highlights the publication productivity of orthopaedic surgery department chairs and residency program directors and describes the linear association between publication productivity of academic orthopaedic leaders and program rank. This information can be utilized by those interested in learning more about the publication productivity among academic orthopaedic surgeons across different institutions and can assist those who are involved in the hiring and promotion process at these academic institutions.
Correlation Between H-Index, M-Index, and Academic Rank in Urology

Alexander P. Nocera,Hunter Boudreau,Carter J. Boyd,Ashutosh Tamhane,Kimberly D. Martin,Soroush Rais-Bahrami

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2024.04.041

IF: 1.555

2024-05-05

Urology journal

Abstract:OBJECTIVES To evaluate the h- and m-indices of academic urologists across all U.S. accredited urology residency programs to determine the relationship between these metrics and an author's academic rank, academic degrees, and gender. METHODS A total of 136 urology residency programs with available faculty information on their websites were evaluated. The academic rank, academic degrees, and gender were recorded for each clinical and research faculty member. Each author's h-index was determined using the Scopus database. The m-indices for each author were then calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS This study demonstrated that the h- and m-indices positively correlate with an author's academic rank. Among the 2,253 academic urologists evaluated, chairs/chiefs and professors had the highest median h- and m-indices (h-index 26, m-index 1.046 for chairs/chiefs; h-index 30, m-index 1.094 for professors). This was followed by associate professors (h-index 14, m-index 0.750), assistant professors (h-index 6, m-index 0.667), and clinical instructors (h-index 6, m-index 0.511). The median h- and m-indices were overall statistically higher for males than females. Faculty members with only a PhD were found to have the highest h- and m-indices followed by MD PhD, MD MBA, MD MPH, MD only, and DO only in descending order of index value. CONCLUSIONS The h- and m-indices of academic urologists positively correlate with their academic rank. These metrics may serve as an additional tool in measuring an individual's academic productivity in consideration of job hirings, positional promotions, societal memberships, achievement awards, research grants, and more.

urology & nephrology
Evaluation of the i10-Index in Plastic Surgery Research and its Correlation with Altmetric Attention Scores and Traditional Author Bibliometrics: An Evaluation of a Single Journal

Eric Shiah,Adee J. Heiman,Joseph A. Ricci

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1760827

2023-02-03

Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery

Abstract:Background Although the Hirsch index (H-index) has become one of the most accepted measures of scholarly output, its limitations have led to the proposition of newer alternative metrics. The i10-index, notable for being easy to calculate and free to access, has potential, given its association with the power and ubiquity of Google. This study aims to evaluate the utility of the i10-index for plastic surgery research by examining its relationship with author bibliometrics and article metrics, including the H-index and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Methods Article metrics were extracted from articles published in the highest impact plastic surgery journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, over a 2-year period (2017–2019). Senior author bibliometrics, including i10-index and H5-index, were obtained from Web of Science. Correlation analysis was performed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r s ). Results A total of 1,668 articles were published and 971 included. Senior author i10-index measurements demonstrated moderate correlation with times emailed (r s = 0.47), and weak correlations with H5-index, total publications, and sum of times cited with and without self-citations. The H5-index correlated very strongly with total publications (r s = 0.91) and sum of times cited (both r s = 0.97), moderately with average citations per item (r s = 0.66) and times emailed (r s = 0.41), and weakly with number of citations by posts, AAS, and times tweeted. Conclusions Although the i10 strongly correlates with the H5-index, it fails to prove superior to the H5-index in predicting the impact of specific research studies in the field of plastic surgery. This work was previously presented at 2020 Plastic Surgery The Meeting (Virtual). E.S. and A.H. contributed to data collection, data analysis and manuscript preparation. J.R. contributed to data analysis, manuscript preparation and project oversight. No human or animal subjects were involved in this study. Ethical approval was not required. Article published online: 02 February 2023 © 2023. Association of Plastic Surgeons of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
The Relative Citation Ratio: Evaluating a New Measure of Scientific Influence Among Academic Sports Medicine Surgeons

Tiffany A. Smith,Suleiman Y. Sudah,Joseph E. Manzi,Christopher R. Michel,Daniel J. Kerrigan,Christopher N. Dijanic,David S. Constantinescu,Mariano E. Menendez,Ryan Plyler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671221137845

IF: 2.6

2023-01-22

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract:Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, Volume 11, Issue 1, January 2023. Background:Objective measures of research influence are being increasingly utilized to evaluate and compare academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index and article citation count, are biased by time-dependent factors and are limited by a lack of field normalization. The relative citation ratio (RCR) is a new field- and time-normalized article-level metric developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the RCR among fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgeons and to analyze physician factors associated with RCR values. We hypothesized that the mean RCR score for fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgery faculty will fall above the NIH standard.Study Design:Cross-sectional study.Methods:A retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship-trained sports medicine surgery faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited orthopaedic surgery residency programs in December 2021. In eligible faculty, the mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A mean RCR value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. The data herein are presented as the median and interquartile range, in addition to the mean and standard deviation, to account for outliers of the mean and weighted RCR scores.Results:A total of 624 fellowship-trained sports medicine surgery faculty members from 160 orthopaedic surgery residency programs were included in the analysis. Overall, faculty produced impactful research, with a median RCR of 1.6 (interquartile range, 1.0-2.2) and a median weighted RCR of 19.3 (interquartile range, 5.1-69.3). Advanced academic rank and career longevity were associated with increased weighted RCR and total publication count. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value >1.0.Conclusion:Study findings indicate that fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgery faculty are highly productive and produce impactful research, as evidenced by the high median RCR value relative to the benchmark NIH RCR value of 1.0.

orthopedics,sport sciences
Evaluation of h-index and its qualitative and quantitative variants in Neuroscience

Madiha Ameer,Muhammad Tanvir Afzal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03209-6

IF: 3.801

2019-08-30

Scientometrics

Abstract:In the scientific community, different parameters such as, publications, citations, h-index and different variants of h-index are being used to rank the authors. Authors ranking assists in various objectives, including scientific domain expert's selection and subsequently utilizing their services for different purposes. It can also be used in ranking institutions, selecting journal's editors, tenure appointments and awarding promotions. There is a need to nominate the best performing index that can rank the authors in a best possible way. All of the existing parameters are either examined on fictional case scenarios or on insufficient datasets belonging to different fields, due to which it is hard to figure out the comparative performance of each index. In order to strongly validate the performance of each individual index these indices should be examined on the large size dataset. This research focuses attention on the evaluation of h-index and some of its variants, both quantitative and qualitative for ranking authors. All these indices are evaluated on a large size dataset belonging to the field of Neuroscience. To evaluate the results of these indices award winners of five different Neuroscience societies are considered as a benchmark. This study will be helpful in distinguishing more dominant authors based on the evaluation results of these quantitative and qualitative indices. In order to evaluate the results obtained from these indices, firstly the correlation among the indices is calculated. Most of the indices such as h-index, hg-index, R-index and m-quotient have strong correlation among them. However, the correlation of f-index with all other indices is weak, which indicates that ranking achieved by the f-index is not similar to others. Secondly the occurrence of award winners in ranked list of each index is calculated and contribution of each index in bringing awardees in top position is checked. None of the index brought 100% of awardees in top positions of the ranking. In quantitative indices hg-index brought maximum 52% awardees in top 10% of its ranked list. While in qualitative indices R-index validated itself as a best performing index by ranking 52% awardees in top 10% of its ranked list. Moreover, it is analyzed that most of the award winners belonging to the SfN (Society for Neuroscience) and CNS (Cognitive Neuroscience Society) lies on the top positions of ranked lists obtained from h-index and hg-index which specify that there might be a relationship between SfN, NAS and the h and hg-indices.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Comparison of the h index with standard bibliometric indicators to rank influential otolaryngologists in Europe and North America

Jeyanthi Kulasegarah,J. E. Fenton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-009-1009-5

2009-06-24

Abstract:The Hirsch (h) index is an original and simple new bibliometric measure incorporating both quantity and quality. In this study, our aim was first to present characteristics of the statistical correlation between the h index and several standard bibliometric indicators and secondly we compared the h index between otolaryngologists from Europe and US. We used the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge to identify citation reports from a random sample of influential editors from six otolaryngology journals: Journal of Laryngology and Otology (n = 21), Clinical Otolaryngology (n = 16), European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology (n = 49), The Laryngoscope (n = 66), Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (n = 15), and Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (n = 15). The following data were gathered: Number of publications (P), total citations received by P(C), total citations received by P without self-citations (Cs), average number of citations per publication (CPP), and Hirsch index (h). Statistical analysis was used to correlate the above data and we also compared the h index of European and North American editors. There were 182 randomly selected editors. We observed a good correlation between the h index and other standard bibliometric indicators. Using the non-parametric Mann–Whitney test, the median P between Europe and US was not statistically significant. However, the median C, CS and h were statistically significant. In conclusion, the h index is a simple yet powerful indicator as it combines productivity and impact. Overall, the US editorial panel have a higher h index.

otorhinolaryngology
Five-Year Institutional Bibliometric Profiles for 119 North American Neurosurgical Residency Programs: An Update

Ryan P Lee,Garrett T Venable,Mallory L Roberts,Kara A Parikh,Douglas R Taylor,Nickalus R Khan,L Madison Michael 2nd,Paul Klimo Jr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.07.006

Abstract:Background: We recently performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of 103 U.S. neurosurgical departments and found the ih(5)-index as meaningful and reproducible using public data. The present report expands this analysis by adding 14 Canadian and 2 additional U.S. programs. Methods: Departments were included if listed in the American Association of Neurological Surgeons Residency Directory. Each institution was considered a single entity, and original research articles with authors who were neurosurgeon faculty were counted only once per institution, although a single article may have been credited toward multiple institutions, if applicable. The following bibliometric indices were calculated and used to rank departments: ih(5), ig(5), ie(5), and i10(5). In addition, intradepartmental comparison of productivity among faculty members was analyzed by computing Gini coefficients for publications and citations. Results: The top 5 most academically productive North American neurosurgical programs based on ih(5)-index were found to be the University of Toronto, University of California at San Francisco, University of California at Los Angeles, University of Pittsburgh, and Brigham and Women's Hospital. The top 5 Canadian programs were the University of Toronto, University of Calgary, McGill University, University of Sherbrooke, and University of British Columbia. The median ih(5)-index for U.S. and Canadian programs was 12 and 10.5, respectively. Conclusions: This is the most accurate comprehensive analysis to date of contemporary bibliometrics among North American neurosurgery departments. Using the ih(5)-index for institutional ranking allows for informative comparison of recent scholarly efforts.
Quantitative analysis of automatic performance evaluation systems based on the h-index

Marc P. Hauer,Xavier C. R. Hofmann,Tobias D. Krafft,Katharina A. Zweig

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03407-7

IF: 3.801

2020-03-14

Scientometrics

Abstract:Abstract Since the h -index has been invented, it is the most frequently discussed bibliometric value and one of the most commonly used metrics to quantify a researcher’s scientific output. The more it is increasingly gaining popularity to use the metric as an indication of the quality of a job applicant or an employee the more important it is to assure its correctitude. Many platforms offer the h -index of a scientist as a service, sometimes without the explicit knowledge of the respective person. In this article we show that looking up the h -index for a researcher on the five most commonly used platforms, namely AMiner, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Scopus and Web of Science, results in a variance that is in many cases as large as the average value. This is due to the varying definitions of what a scientific article is, the underlying data basis, and different qualities of the entity recognition problem. To perform our study, we crawled the h -index of the worlds top researchers according to two different rankings, all the Nobel Prize laureates except Literature and Peace, and the teaching staff of the computer science department of the TU Kaiserslautern Germany with whom we additionally computed their h -index manually. Thus we showed that the individual h -indices differ to an alarming extent between the platforms. We observed that researchers with an extraordinary high h -index and researchers with an index appropriate to the scientific career path and the respective scientific field are affected alike by these problems.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Factors Associated with Research Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding in Academic Otology

Lucy Revercomb,Aman M. Patel,Om B. Tripathi,Andrey Filimonov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.31408

IF: 2.97

2024-03-28

The Laryngoscope

Abstract:In this study, we evaluate the relationship between the relative citation ratio and National Institutes of Health funding and provide relative citation ratio benchmark data for the field of academic otology. The h‐index has a strong relationship with NIH funding in academic otology. The mean relative citation ratio may correct some of the deficiencies of time‐dependent bibliometrics and promote representation of women in otology. Objectives Bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index (h‐index) and the more recently developed relative citation ratio (RCR), are utilized to evaluate research productivity. Our study evaluates demographics, research productivity, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in academic otology. Methods Academic otologists were identified, and their demographics were collected using institutional faculty profiles (N = 265). Funding data were obtained using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports Database. The h‐index was calculated using Scopus and mean (m‐RCR) and weighted RCR (w‐RCR) were calculated using the NIH iCite tool. Results H‐index (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10–1.27, p

medicine, research & experimental,otorhinolaryngology
Evaluating Scholars’ Impact and Influence: Cross-sectional Study of the Correlation Between a Novel Social Media–Based Score and an Author-Level Citation Metric

Lucas Oliveira J e Silva,Graciela Maldonado,Tara Brigham,Aidan F Mullan,Audun Utengen,Daniel Cabrera

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/28859

IF: 7.076

2021-05-31

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Background The development of an author-level complementary metric could play a role in the process of academic promotion through objective evaluation of scholars’ influence and impact. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the Healthcare Social Graph (HSG) score, a novel social media influence and impact metric, and the h-index, a traditional author-level metric. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of health care stakeholders with a social media presence randomly sampled from the Symplur database in May 2020. We performed stratified random sampling to obtain a representative sample with all strata of HSG scores. We manually queried the h-index in two reference-based databases (Scopus and Google Scholar). Continuous features (HSG score and h-index) from the included profiles were summarized as the median and IQR. We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) to evaluate the correlation between the HSG scores and h-indexes obtained from Google Scholar and Scopus. Results A total of 286 (31.2%) of the 917 stakeholders had a Google Scholar h-index available. The median HSG score for these profiles was 61.1 (IQR 48.2), and the median h-index was 14.5 (IQR 26.0). For the 286 subjects with the HSG score and Google Scholar h-index available, the Spearman correlation coefficient ρ was 0.1979 (P<.001), indicating a weak positive correlation between these two metrics. A total of 715 (78%) of 917 stakeholders had a Scopus h-index available. The median HSG score for these profiles was 57.6 (IQR 46.4), and the median h-index was 7 (IQR 16). For the 715 subjects with the HSG score and Scopus h-index available, ρ was 0.2173 (P<.001), also indicating a weak positive correlation. Conclusions We found a weak positive correlation between a novel author-level complementary metric and the h-index. More than a chiasm between traditional citation metrics and novel social media–based metrics, our findings point toward a bridge between the two domains.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
The Impact of H-Indexin Predicting Academic Radiation Oncology Promotion

Monique N Westley,Christina C. Huang,Reshma Jagsi,Shearwood McClelland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2024.07.104

IF: 2.739

2024-08-30

Journal of the National Medical Association

Abstract:Introduction Productivity in medical academia encompasses research output impact, and professional influence, with the Hirsch index (h-index) serving as a key metric. H-index measures the number of publications (x) cited at least x times. While prior research in radiation oncology has explored the h-index's influence on career trajectories and academic rank, its connection with academic promotion remains underexplored. This study systematically delves into the relationship between the h-index and academic promotion through a comprehensive analysis of a nationwide cohort. Methods The dataset comprises information from 554 radiation oncologists affiliated with 51 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, documented in 2019 and reassessed in 2023. The study focuses on oncologists at junior faculty levels or associate professor levels in 2019. By comparing academic ranks in 2019 with positions in 2023, promotion status was determined, and statistical analysis using Fisher's exact test assessed the impact of the h-index on promotion, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results The findings indicate that 61% (338) of oncologists achieved promotion, while 39% (216) did not. The mean h-index stood at 12.3(median = 9), with a notably higher average (15.3) observed among those who were promoted. A statistically significant association (p 9 and promotion was established. Conclusion In summary, an h-index exceeding 9 emerges as a predictive factor for academic promotion within a four-year timeframe among radiation oncologists, emphasizing the critical role of impactful research in academic career advancement.

medicine, general & internal
Analysis of h-index for research awards

Aashay Singhal,Kamalakar Karlapalem

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.03364

2023-05-17

Abstract:In order to advance academic research, it is important to assess and evaluate the academic influence of researchers and the findings they produce. Citation metrics are universally used methods to evaluate researchers. Amongst the several variations of citation metrics, the h-index proposed by Hirsch has become the leading measure. Recent work shows that h-index is not an effective measure to determine scientific impact - due to changing authorship patterns. This can be mitigated by using h-index of a paper to compute h- index of an author. We show that using fractional allocation of h-index gives better results. In this work, we reapply two indices based on the h-index of a single paper. The indices are referred to as: hp-index and hp-frac-index. We run large-scale experiments in three different fields with about a million publications and 3,000 authors. We also compare h-index of a paper with nine h-index like metrics. Our experiments show that hp-frac-index provides a unique ranking when compared to h-index. It also performs better than h-index in providing higher ranks to the awarded researcher.

Digital Libraries,Social and Information Networks
The i100-index, i1000-index and i10,000-index: expansion and fortification of the Google Scholar h-index for finer-scale citation descriptions and researcher classification

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03831-9

IF: 3.801

2021-02-06

Scientometrics

Abstract:The Hirsch or h-index continues to be one of the most popular author-based metrics, despite some of its flaws and limitations. In some cases, citations to some academics' work are increasing at a phenomenal pace, and in some exceptional cases such as Highly Cited Researchers (HCRs), whether alive or deceased, citation counts to their work have reached tens or hundreds of thousands, with h-indexes in the hundreds. Although the h-index currently has one additional derivative index, the i10-index, which is a measure of the number of publications with 10 or more citations, the i10-index is clearly not a sufficient differentiating factor for academics with very high citation counts such as HCRs. In this letter, an expansion of this metric is proposed to include an i100-index, an i1000-index, and an i10,000-index, which indicate the number of publications with 100, 1000, or 10,000 or more citations, respectively. These three new, expanded and/or modified metrics that are based on the h-index may assist in more effectively differentiating the top echelon of HCRs or leaders in a specific field of study. The i100-, i1000-, and i10,000-indexes for 10 HCRs (Michel Foucault, Ronald C. Kessler, Graham Colditz, Sigmund Freud, JoAnn E. Manson, Shizuo Akira, Pierre Bourdieu, Robert Langer, Eric Lander, and Bert Vogelstein) were calculated. Limitations to these three new proposed h-index-based indexes are noted.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
A review on h-index and its alternative indices

Anand Bihari,Sudhakar Tripathi,Akshay Deepak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211014478

2021-05-31

Journal of Information Science

Abstract:In recent years, several scientometrics and bibliometrics indicators were proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of individuals, institutions, colleges, universities and research teams. The h-index gives a breakthrough in the research community for assessing the scientific impact of an individual. It got a lot of attention due to its simplicity, and several other indicators were proposed to extend the properties of the h-index and to overcome its shortcomings. In this literature review, we have discussed the advantages and limitations of almost all scientometrics and bibliometrics indicators, which have been categorised into seven categories based on their properties: (1) complement of h-index, (2) based on total number of authors, (3) based on publication age, (4) combination of two indices, (5) based on excess citation count, (6) based on total publication count and (7) based on other variants. The primary objective of this article is to study all those indicators which have been proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of an individual researcher or a group of researchers.

computer science, information systems,information science & library science
The Pagerank-Index: Going beyond Citation Counts in Quantifying Scientific Impact of Researchers

Upul Senanayake,Mahendra Piraveenan,Albert Zomaya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134794

IF: 3.7

2015-08-19

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Quantifying and comparing the scientific output of researchers has become critical for governments, funding agencies and universities. Comparison by reputation and direct assessment of contributions to the field is no longer possible, as the number of scientists increases and traditional definitions about scientific fields become blurred. The h-index is often used for comparing scientists, but has several well-documented shortcomings. In this paper, we introduce a new index for measuring and comparing the publication records of scientists: the pagerank-index (symbolised as π). The index uses a version of pagerank algorithm and the citation networks of papers in its computation, and is fundamentally different from the existing variants of h-index because it considers not only the number of citations but also the actual impact of each citation. We adapt two approaches to demonstrate the utility of the new index. Firstly, we use a simulation model of a community of authors, whereby we create various 'groups' of authors which are different from each other in inherent publication habits, to show that the pagerank-index is fairer than the existing indices in three distinct scenarios: (i) when authors try to 'massage' their index by publishing papers in low-quality outlets primarily to self-cite other papers (ii) when authors collaborate in large groups in order to obtain more authorships (iii) when authors spend most of their time in producing genuine but low quality publications that would massage their index. Secondly, we undertake two real world case studies: (i) the evolving author community of quantum game theory, as defined by Google Scholar (ii) a snapshot of the high energy physics (HEP) theory research community in arXiv. In both case studies, we find that the list of top authors vary very significantly when h-index and pagerank-index are used for comparison. We show that in both cases, authors who have collaborated in large groups and/or published less impactful papers tend to be comparatively favoured by the h-index, whereas the pagerank-index highlights authors who have made a relatively small number of definitive contributions, or written papers which served to highlight the link between diverse disciplines, or typically worked in smaller groups. Thus, we argue that the pagerank-index is an inherently fairer and more nuanced metric to quantify the publication records of scientists compared to existing measures.

multidisciplinary sciences
Exploring the limitations of the h-index and h-type indexes in measuring the research performance of authors

Jingda Ding,Chao Liu,Goodluck Asobenie Kandonga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03364-1

IF: 3.801

2020-01-25

Scientometrics

Abstract:With the introduction of an increasing number of evaluation indexes, researchers have begun to pay attention to the limitations of such indexes in research evaluation, understanding which to avoid misusing and making evaluation more scientific and reasonable. Analysing the principles of the h-index, g-index, AR-index, p-index, integrated impact indicator (I3), and academic trace, this paper explores their limitations in measuring the research performance of authors from the perspectives of consistency, the degree of discrimination, and the statistical relationship between the values of indicators and the number of publications and citations. There are some interesting findings. These six indicators are highly consistent, and they are all more susceptible to the number of publications than to the frequency of citations. Among them, the h-index has the lowest degree of discrimination, followed by the g-index, I3, AR-index, p-index, and academic trace. The g-index ignores papers and citations other than the g-core. Moreover, compared to the h-index, the accumulation of citations makes it easier for the g-index to be equal to the number of papers published by an author, and once its value equals the number of papers, subsequent citations received by these papers will no longer contribute to the growth of the g-index unless the author publishes a new paper. Additionally, the AR-index ignores the h-tail papers and citations, which underestimates the impact of many researchers. Moreover, the p-index is insensitive to highly cited papers. Furthermore, the I3 is very vulnerable to the influence of the extremums in a data set. Finally, we propose considerations and suggestions for the research performance evaluation of authors.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications

Effect of corticosteroids on sperm antibody concentration in different biological fluids and on pregnancy outcome in immunologic infertility

Is the h-Index Enough? A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of 871 Academic Plastic Surgeons and Their Departments/Divisions

hglobal-index: a novel author-level measure of the diffusion of scientific ideas among high-, low-, and middle-income countries

Comment on “In utero gratification behavior in male fetus”

Elicitation of Broadly Neutralizing Influenza Antibodies in Animals with Previous Influenza Exposure

Exploring Impact and Variability of Research Productivity Among Academic Orthopaedic Leaders

Correlation Between H-Index, M-Index, and Academic Rank in Urology

Evaluation of the i10-Index in Plastic Surgery Research and its Correlation with Altmetric Attention Scores and Traditional Author Bibliometrics: An Evaluation of a Single Journal

The Relative Citation Ratio: Evaluating a New Measure of Scientific Influence Among Academic Sports Medicine Surgeons

Evaluation of h-index and its qualitative and quantitative variants in Neuroscience

Comparison of the h index with standard bibliometric indicators to rank influential otolaryngologists in Europe and North America

Five-Year Institutional Bibliometric Profiles for 119 North American Neurosurgical Residency Programs: An Update

Quantitative analysis of automatic performance evaluation systems based on the h-index

Factors Associated with Research Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding in Academic Otology

Evaluating Scholars’ Impact and Influence: Cross-sectional Study of the Correlation Between a Novel Social Media–Based Score and an Author-Level Citation Metric

The Impact of H-Indexin Predicting Academic Radiation Oncology Promotion

Analysis of h-index for research awards

The i100-index, i1000-index and i10,000-index: expansion and fortification of the Google Scholar h-index for finer-scale citation descriptions and researcher classification

A review on h-index and its alternative indices

The Pagerank-Index: Going beyond Citation Counts in Quantifying Scientific Impact of Researchers

Exploring the limitations of the h-index and h-type indexes in measuring the research performance of authors