Tarig Abdelrahman1, Josephine Brown2, Jenny Wheat2, Charlotte Thomas2, Wyn Lewis2. 1. Department of General Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom. Electronic address: tarig007@yahoo.com. 2. Department of General Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Hirsch Index (h-index) is often used to assess research impact, and on average a social science senior lecturer will have an h-index of 2.29, yet its validity within the context of UK General Surgery (GS) is unknown. The aim of this study was to calculate the h-indices of a cohort of GS consultants in a UK Deanery to assess its relative validity. DESIGN: Individual h-indices and total publication (TP) counts were obtained for GS consultants via the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) Internet search engines. Assessment of construct validity and reliability of these 2 measures of the h-index was undertaken. SETTING: All hospitals in a single UK National Health Service Deanery were included (14 general hospitals). PARTICIPANTS: All 136 GS consultants from the Deanery were included. RESULTS: Median h-index (Scopus) was 5 (0-52) and TP 15 (0-369), and strong correlation was found between h-index and TP (ρ = 0.932, p < 0.001), with the intraclass correlation between Scopus and WoS h-index also significant (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.973 [95% CI: 0.962-0.981], p < 0.001). Academic GS consultants had higher h-indices than nonacademic University Hospital and District General Hospital consultants (Scopus 12 vs 7 vs 4 [p < 0.001] and WoS 10.5 vs 7 vs 4 [p < 0.001]). h-Index was >2.29 in 57.4% of consultants. No subspecialty differences were apparent in median h-indices (p = 0.792) and TP (p = 0.903). CONCLUSIONS: h-Index is a valid GS research productivity metric with over half of consultants performing at levels equivalent to social science Senior Lecturers.
OBJECTIVES: The Hirsch Index (h-index) is often used to assess research impact, and on average a social science senior lecturer will have an h-index of 2.29, yet its validity within the context of UK General Surgery (GS) is unknown. The aim of this study was to calculate the h-indices of a cohort of GS consultants in a UK Deanery to assess its relative validity. DESIGN: Individual h-indices and total publication (TP) counts were obtained for GS consultants via the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) Internet search engines. Assessment of construct validity and reliability of these 2 measures of the h-index was undertaken. SETTING: All hospitals in a single UK National Health Service Deanery were included (14 general hospitals). PARTICIPANTS: All 136 GS consultants from the Deanery were included. RESULTS: Median h-index (Scopus) was 5 (0-52) and TP 15 (0-369), and strong correlation was found between h-index and TP (ρ = 0.932, p < 0.001), with the intraclass correlation between Scopus and WoS h-index also significant (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.973 [95% CI: 0.962-0.981], p < 0.001). Academic GS consultants had higher h-indices than nonacademic University Hospital and District General Hospital consultants (Scopus 12 vs 7 vs 4 [p < 0.001] and WoS 10.5 vs 7 vs 4 [p < 0.001]). h-Index was >2.29 in 57.4% of consultants. No subspecialty differences were apparent in median h-indices (p = 0.792) and TP (p = 0.903). CONCLUSIONS: h-Index is a valid GS research productivity metric with over half of consultants performing at levels equivalent to social science Senior Lecturers.
Authors: David B T Robinson; Luke Hopkins; Chris Brown; Tarig Abdelrahman; Arfon G Powell; Richard J Egan; Wyn G Lewis Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.352