Standardizing the Evaluation of Scientific and Academic Performance in Neurosurgery-Critical Review of the "h" Index and its Variants.
ABSTRACT Assessing the academic impact and output of scientists and physicians is essential to the academic promotion process and has largely depended on peer review. The inherent subjectivity of peer review, however, has led to an interest to incorporate objective measures into more established methods of academic assessment and promotion. Journal impact factor has been used to add objectivity to the process but this index alone does not capture all aspects of academic impact and achievement. The "h" index and its variants have been designed to compensate for these shortcomings, and have been successfully used in the fields of physics, mathematics, and biology, and more recently in medicine. Leaders in academic neurosurgery should be aware of the advantages offered by each of these indices, as well as of their individual shortcomings, to be able to efficiently use them to refine the peer-review process. This review critically analyzes indices that are currently available to evaluate the academic impact of scientists and physicians. These indices include the total citation count, the total number of papers, the impact factor, as well as the "h" index with eight of its most common variants. The analysis focuses on their use in the field of academic neurosurgery, and discusses means to implement them in current review processes.
- SourceAvailable from: Ramin Sadeghi[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar are three major sources which provide h-indices for individual researchers. In this study we aimed to compare the h-indices of the academic pediatricians of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences obtained from the above mentioned sources. Academic pediatrician who had at least 5 ISI indexed articles entered the study. Information required for evaluating the h-indices of the included researchers were retrieved from official websites Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, and Google Scholar (GS). Correlations between obtained h-indices from the mentioned databases were analyzed using Spearrman correlation coefficient. Ranks of each researcher according to each database h-index were also evaluated. In general, 16 pediatricians entered the study. Computed h-indices for individual authors were different in each database. Correlations between obtained h-indices were: 0.439 (ISI and Scopus), 0.488 (ISI and GS), and 0.810 (Scopus and GS). Despite differences between evaluated h-indices in each database for individual authors, the rankings according to these h-indices were almost similar. Although h-indices supplied by WOS, SCOPUS, and GS can be used interchangeably, their differences should be acknowledged. Setting up "ReasercherID" in WOS and "User profile" in GS, and giving regular feedback to SCOPUS can increase the validity of the calculated h-indices.Acta Informatica Medica 12/2013; 21(4):234-236.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Object The application of bibliometric techniques to academic neurosurgery has been the focus of several recent publications. The authors provide here a detailed analysis of all active pediatric neurosurgeons in North America and their respective departments. Methods Using Scopus and Google Scholar, a bibliometric profile for every known active pediatric neurosurgeon in North America was created using the following citation metrics: h-, contemporary h-, g-, and e-indices and the m-quotient. Various subgroups were compared. Departmental productivity from 2008 through 2013 was measured, and departments were ranked on the basis of cumulative h- and e-indices and the total number of publications and citations. Lorenz curves were created, and Gini coefficients were calculated for all departments with 4 or more members. Results Three hundred twelve pediatric neurosurgeons (260 male, 52 female) were included for analysis. For the entire group, the median h-index, m-quotient, contemporary h-, g-, and e-indices, and the corrected g- and e-indices were 10, 0.59, 7, 18, 17, 1.14, and 1.01, respectively; the range for each index varied widely. Academic pediatric neurosurgeons associated with fellowship programs (compared with unassociated neurosurgeons), academic practitioners (compared with private practitioners), and men (compared with women) had superior measurements. There was no significant difference between American and Canadian pediatric neurosurgeons. The mean Gini coefficient for publications was 0.45 (range 0.18-0.70) and for citations was 0.53 (range 0.25-0.80). Conclusions This study represents the most exhaustive evaluation of academic productivity for pediatric neurosurgeons in North America to date. These results should serve as benchmarks for future studies.Journal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics 10/2014; · 1.63 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Bradford's law describes the number of core journals in a given field or subject and has recently been applied to neurosurgery. The objective of this study was to use currently accepted formulations of Bradford's law to identify core journals of pediatric neurosurgery. An additional analysis was completed to compare regional dependence on citation density among North American and European neurosurgeons.Child s Nervous System 08/2014; · 1.16 Impact Factor