Orthopaedic surgery academic productivity - how do we measure up?

Abstract

Purpose: Research is vital for evidence-based surgery. Understanding scientometric differences among surgical specialties has scope to inform discussions within and across surgical specialities to develop and maintain a culture of research productivity. This study aims to quantify Australian orthopaedic surgical academic productivity compared to the other specialties within the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons' (RACS).

Methods: A list of Australian surgeons registered with RACS was compiled using the "find a surgeon" function on the RACS Web site. This list was cross-referenced with the specialty databases on their respective websites. A name search of the SCOPUS database for each individual surgeon was performed. For each individual h-index, m-index, total active publishing years, total publications, and total citations were collected.

Results: Orthopaedic surgeons had the equal lowest h-index median 2 (interquartile range:3), the shortest duration involved in research median 5 years (14), produced the fewest articles median 2 (7) and attained the second lowest number of citations median 28 (116) of the Australian surgical specialties. When the 10 individuals with highest h-index are compared among specialties, orthopaedic surgeons rank second with a median of 37 (6.5).

Conclusion: Our objective data provides a factual comparison and baseline assessment of one aspect of research productivity. It can challenge currently held perceptions of performance and can inform conversations about strategic development. We recommend this assessment to other international Colleges and Societies on regular basis. These accurate academic productivity metrics provide opportunity for developing and maintaining a culture of sustained, significant contribution to surgical research.