A Review of Individual and Institutional Publication Productivity in Medical Radiation Science

Abstract

Aims: To investigate the research impact of active medical radiation science (MRS) researchers and the research output of MRS institutions globally. Methods: An iterative search strategy was used to firstly identify productive MRS authors and then examine their productivity over a 5year period (January 1, 2010-December 31, 2014) using ''SciVal'' (Elsevier). For each of the authors, the total number of publications in peer-reviewed journals, total number of citations, international collaboration metrics, number of citations per publication, h-index, and i10-index were extracted. Each author's total impact was then quantified. SciVal was also used to quantify the institutional activity. Results: The 105 active authors identified came from 50 institutions worldwide. Most (73.3%) of the active authors had published at least five articles in peer-reviewed international journals within the period reviewed. The total citation count of all authors identified was 3,472 (range, 0-224). The h-index and i10-index of MRS researchers ranged from 0 to 24 (mean, 5.6) and 0 to 34 (mean, 2.48), respectively. Conclusion: Findings demonstrate a low level of research activity and international collaboration among MRS authors. Data provided may help with strategic development goals and to identify potential collaborators and research supervisors internationally. Low publication rates and citations counts raise questions about the viability and sustainability of the MRS evidence base. Conclusion : Les r esultats d emontrent un faible niveau d'activit e de recherche et de collaboration internationale entre les auteurs SRM. Les donn ees fournies peuvent contribuer aux objectifs de d eveloppement strat egique et permettre de recenser des collaborateurs et superviseurs de recherche potentiels a l' echelle internationale. Le faible taux de publication et le petit nombre de citations soul event des questions sur la viabilit e et la durabilit e de la base de donn ees de SRM.

The academic radiography workforce: Age profile, succession planning and academic development

“…This is potentially beneficial to radiography, since a strong research culture and the development of radiographers to doctoral level to lead research is essential to the profession 6 . However, with the primary route for radiographers entering academia being through clinical practice alongside relatively low numbers of radiographers in the UK holding doctorate level qualifications and with a low level of research activity in the UK, this is likely to be challenging for the profession 7,8 . Alternatively, universities could choose to support fewer radiography academics to undertake research and the increasing use of teaching only contracts may have a potential negative effect on the profession and subsequently the evidence base which underpins practice.…”

“…Clearly some radiographers have much more research time allocated, while others have a purely educational and or clinical focus. However, this national picture of a lack of research time and capacity reflects the poor research profile of radiography as a profession at present 1,6,8,16 , which in turn impacts on the evidence base from which the radiography profession practices. Three HEI's reported that radiographers held teaching only contracts, without the requirement to undertake research.…”

Establishing a radiography research culture – Are we making progress?

“…9 While the analyses were each performed in different ways with different strengths and limitations, they all confirmed that radiography publication activity is increasing year on year, but that the majority of articles emerge from a small number of authors and centres. More than 2,000 unique authors of research published in radiography journals between 2004 to 2013, yet more than three quarters contributed to just one article.…”

“…7 Less than 10% of authors published more than two papers in eight years; 7 these more productive authors were usually academics, engaging in regular co-authorship within and outside their institution. The study by Ekpo et al showed that some departments are managing to effectively combine radiography research and teaching, with several publications from several different staff each year, 9 however the majority of radiography departments have few publications annually, from only one or two staff. The first scenario is sustainable in the longer term, whereas the second is highly vulnerable to retirement or transfers of key research staff to other institutions.…”

Guidance on good practice in authorship of journal publications

“…In some countries journal articles are assessed by government-backed bodies to evaluate research quality in order to apportion funding to institutions accordingly 1,2 . Not surprisingly, employers, industry, collaborators and others encourage medical radiation science professionals to collaborate and publish 3,4 .…”