The H-Index in Academic Radiology

Rad, Arash Ehteshami; Brinjikji, Waleed; Cloft, Harry J.; Kallmes, David F.

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2010.03.011

Cited by 141 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10,11,[22][23][24][25] It has been used to predict overall influence of senior scientists and has been shown to be a strong predictor of academic rank in radiology and urology. 11,22 These same data illustrate the variability between specialties, as a full professor of urology has a mean h-index of 22, while a full professor of radiology has a corresponding h-index of only 12.5. Choi et al 10 describe a mean h-index of 8.5 for radiation oncologists, compared to mean h-index of Kulasegarah and Fenton 25 of 15 for otolaryngologists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Distribution of the H‐index Among Academic Emergency Physicians in the United States

DeLuca

John

Stolz

et al. 2013

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Hirsch's h-index (h) attempts to measure the combined academic impact and productivity of a scientist by counting the number of publications by an author, ranked in descending order by number of citations, until the paper number equals the number of citations. This approach provides a natural number or index of the number of publications and the number of citations per publication. H was first described in physics and was demonstrated to be highly predictive of continued academic activity, including recognized measures of scientific excellence such as membership in the National Academy of Sciences and being a Nobel laureate. Citation rates, research environments, and years of experience all affect h, making any comparisons appropriate only for scientists working in the same field for a similar time period. The authors are unaware of any report describing the distribution of h among academic emergency physicians (AEPs).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Distribution of the H‐index Among Academic Emergency Physicians in the United States

DeLuca

John

Stolz

et al. 2013

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7,10,[14][15][16][17]29,[35][36][37]41,43,52,53,[57][58][59] The Scopus database (www.scopus.com) was used to calculate this bibliometric for the present analysis, as it has been of value in several prior analyses of the h index. 7,18,47,59 One analysis among neurosurgeons found a high degree of correlation between results from the Scopus database and Google Scholar, another commonly used h index resource.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of plaintiff and defendant expert witness qualification in malpractice litigation in neurological surgery

Eloy¹,

Svider

Folbe

et al. 2014

JNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object. Expert witnesses provide a valuable societal service, interpreting complex pieces of evidence that may be misunderstood by nonmedical laypersons. The role of medical expert witness testimony and the potential professional repercussions, however, have been controversial in the medical community. The objective of the present analysis was to characterize the expertise of neurological surgeons testifying as expert witnesses in malpractice litigation.Methods. Malpractice litigation involving expert testimony from neurological surgeons was obtained using the WestlawNext legal database. Data pertaining to duration of a surgeon's practice, scholarly impact (as measured by the h index), practice setting, and the frequency with which a surgeon testifies were obtained for these expert witnesses from various online resources including the Scopus database, online medical facility and practice sites, and state medical licensing boards.Results. Neurological surgeons testifying in 326 cases since 2008 averaged over 30 years of experience per person (34.5 years for plaintiff witnesses vs 33.2 for defense witnesses, p = 0.35). Defense witnesses had statistically higher scholarly impact than plaintiff witnesses (h index = 8.76 vs 5.46, p < 0.001). A greater proportion of defense witnesses were involved in academic practice (46.1% vs 24.4%, p < 0.001). Those testifying on behalf of plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times than those testifying on behalf of defendants (20.4% vs 12.6%).Conclusions. Practitioners testifying for either side tend to be very experienced, while those testifying on behalf of defendants have significantly higher scholarly impact and are more likely to practice in an academic setting, potentially indicating a greater level of expertise. Experts for plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times. Surgical societies may need to clarify the necessary qualifications and ethical responsibilities of those who choose to testify.

show abstract

“…[6][7][8][9] In addition to the h-index, other bibliometrics commonly used to resolve hiring and promotion decisions include number of publications, the total number of times an author's publications have been cited by others, and grant funding history. 10 Although all of these are pertinent and easily quantifiable criteria, the h-index is arguably the only one to appraise the relevance of a faculty member's research output.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons

Svider¹,

Pashkova²,

Choudhry³

et al. 2013

The Laryngoscope

111

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis The h‐index, a bibliometric indicator that objectively characterizes the impact of an author's scholarship, is an effective tool that may be considered by academic departments for decisions related to hiring and faculty advancement. Our objective was to characterize the scholarly productivity of academic surgeons from different specialties relative to otolaryngologists. Study Design Analysis of a bibliometric database. Methods The h‐indices of 2,429 faculty members within surgical specialties at 20 randomly selected academic institutions were calculated using the Scopus database and were examined to determine relationship with academic rank and comparison among surgical subspecialties. Results The h‐index statistically increased with academic rank. Mean h‐indices were as follows: assistant professor, 4.37 (range, 2.73–6.69); associate professor, 8.70 (6.53–11.02); professor, 16.44 (13.39–20.45); and chairperson, 20.79 (14.81–27.89). Mean increase between academic rank was 5.47, with the largest increase between the levels of associate professor and professor. Further examination demonstrated statistically significant increases through all academic ranks for most, but not all, individual specialties. Urologists, general surgeons, and neurosurgeons had the highest mean h‐indices. Conclusions h‐indices among the different surgical specialties vary and are potentially impacted by the number of practitioners as well as research emphasis within a field. The mean h‐index of academic otolaryngologists falls in the lower values for academic surgeons. Because this metric varies among different fields, it is most relevant for comparison when examining values within a field. H‐indices reliably increase with increasing academic rank through professor and offer a quantifiable and objective alternative to other metrics when evaluating faculty members for academic advancement.

show abstract

The H-Index in Academic Radiology

Cited by 141 publications

References 12 publications

The Distribution of the H‐index Among Academic Emergency Physicians in the United States

The Distribution of the H‐index Among Academic Emergency Physicians in the United States

Comparison of plaintiff and defendant expert witness qualification in malpractice litigation in neurological surgery

Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About