Impact of fellowship training on research productivity in academic otolaryngology.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Assessment of scholarly productivity as measured by research output is a key component of decisions regarding appointment and advancement in academic otolaryngology. An increasing number of graduating residents are pursuing postresidency fellowships, and evaluation of research productivity among these subspecialists is important in determining their role in academic otolaryngology departments. The h-index is a reliable indicator of research productivity, as it takes into account both quantity and relevance of research contributions. Our objective was to evaluate and compare trends in research productivity among the various otolaryngology subspecialties. STUDY
DESIGN: Analysis of research productivity trends among otolaryngology subspecialties using the h-index.
METHODS: Faculty members from 92 academic otolaryngology departments were organized by subspecialty and academic rank, and their research productivity, as measured by the h-index, was calculated using the Scopus database.
RESULTS: Fellowship-trained otolaryngologists in academic programs had higher h-indices than non-fellowship-trained otolaryngologists. Head and neck surgeons and otologists had significantly higher research productivity than their peers in other otolaryngology subspecialties. Analysis of the subspecialties of chairpersons indicated that 62% were either head and neck surgeons or otologists.
CONCLUSIONS: Fellowship-trained otolaryngologists had higher h-indices, and faculty members trained in the subspecialties with the highest research productivity were disproportionately represented in positions of leadership within academic otolaryngology, probably reflecting the importance of research contributions in the academic advancement process, although other factors, such as educational contributions and clinical performance, may also be important factors.