Publication Productivity in the Medical Radiation Sciences

Abstract

Introduction: The evidence-based foundation of the health professions is dependent on research and its dissemination through peerreviewed journals. The growth of a health profession is dependent on the sharing of knowledge. Various metrics have been used to measure the quality of journals, articles, and authors. These metrics, however, have many flaws. Publication productivity and patterns provide better insights that can guide professional and journal strategy. Methodology: Bibliometric data were collected from seven key peerreviewed, international journals for the medical radiation sciences. These key journals were examined over the period 2009-2013 inclusive (5 years). Medical radiation technologists (MRTs) who had published two or more articles in the seven journals during the study period were further investigated through PubMed and ResearchGate to produce a list of publications (excluding those already identified in the seven primary journals) from the 5-year period. Further analysis was performed on the most prolific authors. Results: A total of 969 articles were published in the seven key peerreview journals that met the inclusion criteria. The 969 articles were written by a total of 2,083 different authors. Overall, 80.5% (1,676 of 2,083) of all authors only published once within the seven journals and 110 of these authors were the sole author of their article. A total of 165 MRTs were identified who had published three or more articles. Conclusion: MRTs contribute significantly to the knowledge base of both the medical radiation science professions and the wider health community through active research. R esultats : Au total, 969 articles ont et e publi es dans les sept revues cl es avec comit e de lecture r epondant aux crit eres d'inclusion. Les 969 articles ont et e r edig es par 2083 auteurs diff erents, dont 80,5 % (1676/2083) n'ont publi e qu'une seule fois dans les sept revues; 110 de ces auteurs avaient ecrit seuls l'article. Nous avons recens e 165 TRM ayant publi e au moins trois articles. Conclusion : Les TRM apportent une contribution significative a la base de connaissance des professions de SRM et a la communaut e plus large de la sant e par une participation active a la recherche.

Doctoral profile of the medical radiation sciences: a baseline for Australia and New Zealand

“…The existence of RT clinical research roles may have assisted this, however, the reason for limited development in DR and sonography is unclear and warrants further investigation. Although previous studies have demonstrated that publication productivity is greatest among DR, they comprise the largest number internationally, with NMT and RT disproportionately represented . The proportion of NMTs and RTs who chose quantitative research is perhaps unsurprising, given their closer working engagement with physics, where research pathways are more mature.…”

“…Mentorship, training and education have been identified as factors that may improve MRS research productivity, and ongoing research training is crucial. Globally, many of the most prolific MRS authors, and therefore active researchers, and institutions are based in Australia, which should support the development of greater research capacity. The number of grants held by respondents and their stated role in doctoral supervision confirms their ongoing research engagement, an important factor in maintaining and developing post‐doctoral skills and research leadership.…”

“…The rapid advances in technology, service innovation and developments in roles mean that the evidence base must continue to evolve to support effective patient care. However, there is increasing concern about low research activity and publication productivity . Research needs to be translated into practice to enhance patient care and the patient's experience.…”

“…However, there is increasing concern about low research activity and publication productivity. 1, [3][4][5] Research needs to be translated into practice to enhance patient care and the patient's experience. In particular, there is a lack of research on new models of service delivery and role development.…”

Establishing a radiography research culture – Are we making progress?

“…Evidence for the growth of radiography research has also emerged from four recent bibliometric studies which reviewed the productivity of radiography authors and their institutions by analysis of specific imaging-related journals [6][7][8] or by using an electronic search tools to target named authors. 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.…”