The Use of the h-Index in Academic Orthopaedic Surgery

Sevag A. Bastian · Joseph Anthony Ippolito · Santiago A. Lopez · Jean Anderson Eloy · Kathleen S. Beebe

156 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Health and Medical Research Impacts Web visibility and informetrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Hirsch index (h-index), widely considered a valuable measure of assessing academic productivity, has been studied in various medical and surgical specialties and has shown strong associations between higher h-indices and academic promotion, as well as with National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards. Additionally, the m-index and e-index may complement the h-index in this assessment of merit. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the h, m, and e-indices and academic rank for 2,061 academic orthopaedic surgeons in the United States. METHODS: The h-indices of faculty members from 120 academic orthopaedic surgery residency programs were organized and calculated using the Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Additionally, m-index and e-index scores were calculated from Google Scholar. After application of exclusion criteria, 2,061 academic orthopaedic surgeons were included. RESULTS: Academic rank (assistant professor, associate professor, professor, and chair) increases as mean h-index, m-index, and e-index scores increase. Among 976 assistant professors, 504 associate professors, 461 professors, and 120 chairs, mean h, m, and e-indices increased with each academic rank. In the comparison of male and female surgeons, there was no significant difference in h, m, or e-index scores, with the exception of increased h-index scores among male assistant professors. CONCLUSIONS: Scholarly impact, as defined by academic productivity and scientific relevance, can be classified by the h-index and supplemented by the m and e-indices. This study has revealed well-defined differences in h, m, and e-indices with regard to academic rank among orthopaedic surgeons. Although the h, m, and e-indices may be of value as adjunct assessment devices for scholarly merit, careful consideration of their limitations must be maintained.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 156 citations exist upstream.

References

2005An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output 2007Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses 2006The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor 2007Does the h index have predictive power?2009The e-Index, Complementing the h-Index for Excess Citations 2006The h index and career assessment by numbers 2010Gender Differences in Academic Productivity and Leadership Appointments of Physicians Throughout Academic Careers 2009Use of the h index in neurosurgery

Cited by

2021Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine 2020Publication Productivity and Academic Rank in Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 2023The h-Index: An Indicator of Research and Publication Output 2018Chairs of United States Academic Ophthalmology Departments: A Descriptive Analysis and Trends 2020Gender-related Differences in Research Productivity, Position, and Advancement Among Academic Orthopaedic Faculty Within the United States

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.