The Use of the h-Index in Academic Orthopaedic Surgery

Sevag A Bastian, J. Ippolito, Santiago A Lopez, J. Eloy, Kathleen S Beebe
{"title":"The Use of the h-Index in Academic Orthopaedic Surgery","authors":"Sevag A Bastian, J. Ippolito, Santiago A Lopez, J. Eloy, Kathleen S Beebe","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.15.01354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The Hirsch index (h-index), widely considered a valuable measure of assessing academic productivity, has been studied in various medical and surgical specialties and has shown strong associations between higher h-indices and academic promotion, as well as with National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards. Additionally, the m-index and e-index may complement the h-index in this assessment of merit. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the h, m, and e-indices and academic rank for 2,061 academic orthopaedic surgeons in the United States. Methods: The h-indices of faculty members from 120 academic orthopaedic surgery residency programs were organized and calculated using the Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Additionally, m-index and e-index scores were calculated from Google Scholar. After application of exclusion criteria, 2,061 academic orthopaedic surgeons were included. Results: Academic rank (assistant professor, associate professor, professor, and chair) increases as mean h-index, m-index, and e-index scores increase. Among 976 assistant professors, 504 associate professors, 461 professors, and 120 chairs, mean h, m, and e-indices increased with each academic rank. In the comparison of male and female surgeons, there was no significant difference in h, m, or e-index scores, with the exception of increased h-index scores among male assistant professors. Conclusions: Scholarly impact, as defined by academic productivity and scientific relevance, can be classified by the h-index and supplemented by the m and e-indices. This study has revealed well-defined differences in h, m, and e-indices with regard to academic rank among orthopaedic surgeons. Although the h, m, and e-indices may be of value as adjunct assessment devices for scholarly merit, careful consideration of their limitations must be maintained.","PeriodicalId":22579,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery","volume":"58 1","pages":"e14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"98","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.01354","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 98

Abstract

Background: The Hirsch index (h-index), widely considered a valuable measure of assessing academic productivity, has been studied in various medical and surgical specialties and has shown strong associations between higher h-indices and academic promotion, as well as with National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards. Additionally, the m-index and e-index may complement the h-index in this assessment of merit. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the h, m, and e-indices and academic rank for 2,061 academic orthopaedic surgeons in the United States. Methods: The h-indices of faculty members from 120 academic orthopaedic surgery residency programs were organized and calculated using the Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Additionally, m-index and e-index scores were calculated from Google Scholar. After application of exclusion criteria, 2,061 academic orthopaedic surgeons were included. Results: Academic rank (assistant professor, associate professor, professor, and chair) increases as mean h-index, m-index, and e-index scores increase. Among 976 assistant professors, 504 associate professors, 461 professors, and 120 chairs, mean h, m, and e-indices increased with each academic rank. In the comparison of male and female surgeons, there was no significant difference in h, m, or e-index scores, with the exception of increased h-index scores among male assistant professors. Conclusions: Scholarly impact, as defined by academic productivity and scientific relevance, can be classified by the h-index and supplemented by the m and e-indices. This study has revealed well-defined differences in h, m, and e-indices with regard to academic rank among orthopaedic surgeons. Although the h, m, and e-indices may be of value as adjunct assessment devices for scholarly merit, careful consideration of their limitations must be maintained.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
h指数在学术骨科手术中的应用
背景:赫希指数(h-index)被广泛认为是评估学术生产力的一个有价值的指标,已经在各种医学和外科专业进行了研究,并显示出较高的h-指数与学术提升以及国家卫生研究院(NIH)奖励之间的强烈关联。此外,m-指数和e-指数可以在这种绩效评估中补充h-指数。本研究旨在探讨美国2061名骨科医师的h、m、e指数与学术排名的关系。方法:利用Scopus和谷歌Scholar数据库,对120个骨科学术住院医师项目教师的h指数进行整理和计算。此外,m-index和e-index得分由谷歌Scholar计算。应用排除标准后,纳入2061名学术骨科医生。结果:随着h-index、m-index和e-index平均分的增加,学术等级(助教、副教授、教授、讲席)也随之增加。在976名助理教授、504名副教授、461名教授、120名教授中,平均h、m、e指数随着学术等级的增加而增加。在男性和女性外科医生的比较中,除了男性助理教授的h指数得分增加外,h指数、m指数和e指数得分没有显著差异。结论:以学术生产力和科学相关性定义的学术影响可以用h指数进行分类,并辅以m指数和e指数。本研究揭示了骨科医生在学术排名方面的h、m和e指数的明显差异。虽然h、m和e指数作为学术价值的辅助评估工具可能有价值,但必须仔细考虑它们的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Prospective, Longitudinal Study of the Influence of Obesity on Total Knee Arthroplasty Revision Rate A Comparison of Revision Rates and Dislocation After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with 28, 32, and 36-mm Femoral Heads and Different Cup Sizes In Adults Aged <65 Years with Unstable Ankle Fractures, Fibular Nailing Did Not Differ from Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Functional Outcome at 1 Year In Single-Bundle ACL Reconstruction Using Patellar Tendon Autograft, Knee Flexion Angle of 0° Versus 30° During Tibial ACL Graft Fixation Did Not Differ for KOOS Subscales, but Improved Activity Level In Patients with Displaced Type-II Distal Clavicle Fractures, Operative and Nonoperative Therapies Did Not Differ for Functional Outcomes at 1 Year
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1