Khushabu Kasabwala1, Christopher M Morton2, Peter F Svider3, Thomas A Nahass4, Jean Anderson Eloy5, Imani Jackson-Rosario2. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. Electronic address: khushabu@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. 3. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan. 4. Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 5. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey; Department of Neurological Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey; Center for Skull Base and Pituitary Surgery, Neurological Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Residents seek postresidency fellowship training to increase competency with novel surgical techniques and augment their fund of knowledge. Research productivity is a vital component of advancement in academic urology. Our objectives were to use the h-index (an objective and readily available bibliometric that has been repeatedly shown to correlate with scholarly impact, funding procurement, and academic promotion in urology as well as other specialties) to determine whether any relationship exists between fellowship training and scholarly impact among academic urologists. Additional examination was performed to determine whether any differences in scholarly influence are present among practitioners in the major urologic subspecialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 851 faculty members from 101 academic urology departments were organized by academic rank and fellowship completed. Research productivity was calculated using the h-index, calculated from the Scopus database. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in h-index found between fellowship-trained and nonfellowship-trained academic urologists. The highest h-indices were seen among urologic oncologists (18.1 ± 0.95) and nonfellowship-trained urologists (14.62 ± 0.80). Nearly 70% of department chairs included in this analysis were urologic oncologists or general urologists. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in h-index existed between fellowship-trained and nonfellowship-trained urologists, although practitioners in the subspecialty cohorts with the highest research productivity (nonfellowship-trained and urologic oncologists) comprised 70% of department chairpersons. This relationship suggests that a strong research profile is highly valued during selection for academic promotion. Differences existed on further comparison by subspecialty. Fellowship training may represent another potential opportunity to introduce structured research experiences for trainees.
PURPOSE: Residents seek postresidency fellowship training to increase competency with novel surgical techniques and augment their fund of knowledge. Research productivity is a vital component of advancement in academic urology. Our objectives were to use the h-index (an objective and readily available bibliometric that has been repeatedly shown to correlate with scholarly impact, funding procurement, and academic promotion in urology as well as other specialties) to determine whether any relationship exists between fellowship training and scholarly impact among academic urologists. Additional examination was performed to determine whether any differences in scholarly influence are present among practitioners in the major urologic subspecialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 851 faculty members from 101 academic urology departments were organized by academic rank and fellowship completed. Research productivity was calculated using the h-index, calculated from the Scopus database. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in h-index found between fellowship-trained and nonfellowship-trained academic urologists. The highest h-indices were seen among urologic oncologists (18.1 ± 0.95) and nonfellowship-trained urologists (14.62 ± 0.80). Nearly 70% of department chairs included in this analysis were urologic oncologists or general urologists. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in h-index existed between fellowship-trained and nonfellowship-trained urologists, although practitioners in the subspecialty cohorts with the highest research productivity (nonfellowship-trained and urologic oncologists) comprised 70% of department chairpersons. This relationship suggests that a strong research profile is highly valued during selection for academic promotion. Differences existed on further comparison by subspecialty. Fellowship training may represent another potential opportunity to introduce structured research experiences for trainees.
Keywords:
Medical Knowledge; Practice-Based Learning and Improvement; Professionalism; academic promotion; fellowship training; research output; research productivity; scholarly productivity; urology
Authors: Adrienne N Christopher; Viren Patel; Joseph A Mellia; Martin P Morris; Fortunay Diatta; Alexander I Murphy; John P Fischer Journal: Arch Plast Surg Date: 2022-04-06
Authors: Rebekah R Jacob; Angeline Gacad; Margaret Padek; Graham A Colditz; Karen M Emmons; Jon F Kerner; David A Chambers; Ross C Brownson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 7.327