2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.06.020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gender Comparison of Scholarly Production in the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Using the Hirsch Index

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
11
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
11
1
Order By: Relevance
“…9,11 Reports from other surgical fields noted the h-index to be independently associated with academic appointment. 9,11,13,18 This finding contrasts with our study findings as the h-index in our study was independently associated only with appointment to division chief. This suggests that the quality of research and research reputation are particularly important for division chief in vascular surgery but less important for promotion within an institution.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…9,11 Reports from other surgical fields noted the h-index to be independently associated with academic appointment. 9,11,13,18 This finding contrasts with our study findings as the h-index in our study was independently associated only with appointment to division chief. This suggests that the quality of research and research reputation are particularly important for division chief in vascular surgery but less important for promotion within an institution.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…Our findings demonstrated a mean h-index of 12.8 among fellowship associated total joint faculty. This compares to an average h-index of 5 for all academic orthopaedic surgeons [6] , 12.8 among musculoskeletal tumor surgeons [18] , 10.2 among fellowship associated hand faculty [16] , and 13.6 among all fellowship associated spine faculty [15] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…[17][18][19]35 These differences have been noted in other specialties as well. 14,[36][37][38][39][40][41] Our recent analysis 42 evaluating industry financial ties among academic otolaryngologists noted that receiving industry contributions greater than $1000 is associated with greater scholarly impact. That study design, like this one, did not allow for attribution of causality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%