No abstract

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.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: Gender disparities within academic promotion have been reported in several medical specialties. Female representation in association with research productivity has not been reported among academic dermatologists. As research productivity is a heavily weighted factor in determining promotion, we sought to determine whether gender disparities in academic rank and scholarly impact, measured by the h-index, exist in academic dermatology. Methods:In 2015, the authors determined gender and academic rank using academic dermatology department websites. Hindex and publication range were determined using the Scopus database. Rank, h-index, and publication range were compared between male and female academic dermatologists. Results:The h-index of academic dermatologists increased with successive academic rank from Assistant Professor through Professor (p<0.001), although no significant difference existed between Chairs and Professors. Publication range also increased with each successive rank from Assistant Professor through Professor (p<0.001), with no statistical significant difference between publication range of Chairs and Professors. Overall, men had higher h-indices than female colleagues (p<0.001). This difference was maintained when controlling for academic rank among Assistant Professors, Professors, and Chairs and when controlling for publication range in years. Conclusion:Women in academic dermatology are underrepresented among senior academic ranks. The difference in scholarly productivity between male and female academic dermatologists may contribute to this disparity. Recommendation for early involvement in research activities may help minimize this gap.