OBJECTIVENeurosurgery is consistently one of the most competitive specialties for resident applicants. The emphasis on research in neurosurgery has led to an increasing number of publications by applicants seeking a successful residency match. The authors sought to produce a comprehensive analysis of research produced by neurosurgical applicants and to establish baseline data of neurosurgery applicant research productivity given the increased emphasis on research output for successful residency match.METHODSA retrospective review of publication volume for all neurosurgery interns in 2009, 2011, 2014, 2016, and 2018 was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Missing data rates were 11% (2009), 9% (2011), and < 5% (all others). The National Resident Matching Program report “Charting Outcomes in the Match” (ChOM) was interrogated for total research products (i.e., abstracts, presentations, and publications). The publication rates of interns at top 40 programs, students from top 20 medical schools, MD/PhD applicants, and applicants based on location of residency program and medical school were compared statistically against all others.RESULTSTotal publications per neurosurgery intern (mean ± SD) based on PubMed and Google Scholar were 5.5 ± 0.6 in 2018 (1.7 ± 0.3, 2009; 2.1 ± 0.3, 2011; 2.6 ± 0.4, 2014; 3.8 ± 0.4, 2016), compared to 18.3 research products based on ChOM. In 2018, the mean numbers of publications were as follows: neurosurgery-specific publications per intern, 4.3 ± 0.6; first/last author publications, 2.1 ± 0.3; neurosurgical first/last author publications, 1.6 ± 0.2; basic science publications, 1.5 ± 0.2; and clinical research publications, 4.0 ± 0.5. Mean publication numbers among interns at top 40 programs were significantly higher than those of all other programs in every category (p < 0.001). Except for mean number of basic science publications (p = 0.1), the mean number of publications was higher for interns who attended a top 20 medical school than for those who did not (p < 0.05). Applicants with PhD degrees produced statistically more research in all categories (p < 0.05) except neurosurgery-specific (p = 0.07) and clinical research (p = 0.3). While there was no statistical difference in publication volume based on the geographical location of the residency program, students from medical schools in the Western US produced more research than all other regions (p < 0.01). Finally, research productivity did not correlate with likelihood of medical students staying at their home institution for residency.CONCLUSIONSThe authors found that the temporal trend toward increased total research products over time in neurosurgery applicants was driven mostly by increased nonindexed research (abstracts, presentations, chapters) rather than by increased peer-reviewed publications. While we also identified applicant-specific factors (MD/PhDs and applicants from the Western US) and an outcome (matching at research-focused institutions) associated with increased applicant publications, further work will be needed to determine the emphasis that programs and applicants will need to place on these publications.

No abstract

Objectives: We aimed to determine publication trends in leading clinical research journals (impact factor >20) during the rise of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to check for an increase in publication times of non-COVID-19 original research articles. Methods: We collected publication data from five print-based medical journals and one online journal--JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet (Lancet), The New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, The BMJ (BMJ), and BMC Medicine (BMC Med)--for the December 2019 through May 2020 period. We categorized each article as either "COVID-19-related" or "non-COVID-19-related". When available, we further extracted data on submission-to-acceptance dates and acceptance-to-publication dates for original research articles for the January through July 2019 and January through July 2020 periods. We compared the time from submission to publication for non-COVID-19 original research articles during the two periods and tested for statistical significance with a one-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: We found that non-COVID-19-related articles began decreasing in volume as COVID-19-related articles increased. In BMJ and Lancet, the COVID-19-related articles began overtaking the non-COVID-19-related articles in number during April and May 2020. However, COVID-19-related primary research articles only began consistently appearing in journal issues during May 2020. Only BMJ and BMC Med publicly recorded complete data regarding their publication timelines. After removing outliers, we found that the mean time from submission to publication for articles published in BMJ from January through July 2019 was 204 days (median: 194 days; IQR: 163-236), and from January through July 2020 was 223 days (median: 218 days; IQR: 177-261) (p=0.04). In BMC Med, the mean time from submission to publication from February through July 2019 was 153 days (median: 150 days; IQR: 123-181), and from February through July 2020 was 163 days (median: 157 days; IQR: 132-191) (p=0.06). Conclusion: We discovered a steadily increasing trend in the percentage of COVID-19-related articles and a concomitant decreasing trend in the percentage of non-COVID-19-related articles published in high-impact print journals during the period from December 2019 through May 2020. For non-COVID-19-related articles published in BMJ, we found a statistically significant increase upon comparing the submission-to-publication times for the period from January through July 2020 with the submission-to-publication times for the period from January through July 2019.

OBJECTIVEPublications are key for advancement within academia. Although women are underrepresented in academic neurosurgery, the rates of women entering residency, achieving board certification, and publishing papers are increasing. The goal of this study was to assess the current status of women in academic neurosurgery publications. Specifically, this study sought to 1) survey female authorship rates in the Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS [not including JNS: Spine or JNS: Pediatrics]) and Neurosurgery from 2010 to 2019; 2) analyze whether double-blind peer review (started in Neurosurgery in 2011) altered female authorship rates relative to single-blind review (JNS); and 3) evaluate how female authorship rates compared with the number of women entering neurosurgery residency and obtaining neurosurgery board certification.METHODSGenders of the first and last authors for JNS and Neurosurgery articles from 2010 to 2019 were obtained. Data were also gathered on the number and percentage of women entering neurosurgery residency and women obtaining American Board of Neurological Surgeons (ABNS) certification between 2010 and 2019.RESULTSWomen accounted for 13.4% (n = 570) of first authors and 6.8% (n = 240) of last authors in JNS and Neurosurgery publications. No difference in rates of women publishing existed between the two journals (first authors: 13.0% JNS vs 13.9% Neurosurgery, p = 0.29; last authors: 7.3% JNS vs 6.0% Neurosurgery, p = 0.25). No difference existed between women first or last authors in Neurosurgery before and after initiation of double-blind review (p = 0.066). Significant concordance existed between the gender of first and last authors: in publications with a woman last author, the odds of the first author being a woman was increased by twofold (OR 2.14 [95% CI 1.43–3.13], p = 0.0001). Women represented a lower proportion of authors of invited papers (8.6% of first authors and 3.1% of last authors were women) compared with noninvited papers (14.1% of first authors and 7.4% of last authors were women) (first authors: OR 0.576 [95% CI 0.410–0.794], p = 0.0004; last authors: OR 0.407 [95% CI 0.198–0.751], p = 0.001). The proportion of women US last authors (7.4%) mirrors the percentage of board-certified women neurosurgeons (5.4% in 2010 and 6.8% in 2019), while the percentage of women US first authors (14.3%) is less than that for women entering neurosurgical residency (11.2% in 2009 and 23.6% in 2018).CONCLUSIONSThis is the first report of female authorship in the neurosurgical literature. The authors found that single- versus double-blind peer review did not impact female authorship rates at two top neurosurgical journals.