Publication Productivity in Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

Publications form the knowledge base of any profession. Patterns in professional publications provide insight into the profession's maturity and global status. To our knowledge, publication productivity in nuclear medicine technology has not been reported. A recent study on publication productivity in radiography and radiation therapy provided interesting insight; however, a sampling bias resulted in study flaws. Methods: The most productive medical radiation technologists were determined by collecting data from 7 key, international peer-reviewed journals for the medical radiation sciences over a 5-y period. A full list of the technologists' publications, for the 5-y period, was obtained using a PubMed and ResearchGate search, and the authors were analyzed. Results: In total, 165 medical radiation technologists were identified who had published 3 or more articles between 2009 and 2013. Of these authors, 55.2% (91/165) were radiographers, 35.2% (58/165) were radiation therapists, and 9.6% (16/165) were nuclear medicine technologists. Overall, the majority of the most prolific authors were academics (104/165; 63.0%). After we applied a correction factor (the productivity per member of the registered workforce), radiography had the fewest authors publishing, compared with the relative workflow sizes. Conclusion: Nuclear medicine technologists demonstrated a high degree of productivity both absolutely and relatively. Consequently, nuclear medicine technologists have a productive research culture and command a large footprint within and outside the key medical radiation science journals.

ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact

“…In addition to the above knowledge gaps, no investigation has assessed the disciplinary or age coverage of ResearchGate to characterize typical articles uploaded and to assess whether there are different levels of interest in them. This is an important omission because (a) this information can be used to guide recommendations for the types of authors and articles that would most benefit from using the site (see also Ward et al, ); (b) levels of uptake can give contexts to institutional analyses of associated ethical and intellectual property issues (Arènes, ) for proposals to use ResearchGate as a data source for alternative metrics (Campos Freire & Valencia, ; Scarlat, Mavrogenis, Pećina, & Niculescu, ); and (c) ResearchGate can be an important source of articles for research (e.g., Kamath, Setlur, & Yerlagudda, ; Łaczmański et al, ; McKellar & Currie, ; Velik, ). In response, this study analyzes a large sample of publications recently uploaded to ResearchGate to assess their age and discipline and the relationship between views on the site and other academic indicators.…”

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

“…Two previous publications [18,19] have identified and listed the most productive MRS authors using various methodologies. This published evidence on productivity provided 52 names.…”

“…This published evidence on productivity provided 52 names. MRS coauthors of those named in these two articles [18,19] were then added to the list, and their colleagues were identified through departmental websites, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar. These sources were also used to identify the professional alignment of the authors.…”

“…Studies have evaluated MRS authors' productivity [18,19]; however, these studies restricted their evaluation to MRS journals only, such as Radiography The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology (JNMT) (Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging). These journals, albeit peer-reviewed, have no impact factor and low bibliometrics in comparison to journals in similar fields, such as radiology.…”

“…Four MRS journals are indexed on SJR, and according to SJR metrics, Radiography has a 2-year citation per document average of 0.8, JMIRS has 0.48, Radiologic Technology has 0.44, JNMT has 1.09 compared with 4.17 for the European Radiology, and 6.6 for Radiology. Therefore, many MRS authors chose to publish in journals with higher impact factor [18]. To fully understand MRS research impact, an all-inclusive analysis is required and should take publications in all peer-reviewed journals into consideration.…”