Evaluation of Research Productivity Among Academic Cornea, External Diseases, and Refractive Surgery Ophthalmologists Using the Relative Citation Ratio

Lucy S. Guan · Matthew N. Henderson · Hartej Singh · Oliver Guyer · Mina Massaro‐Giordano

5 citations0/0 files storedCornea

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 Academic Writing and Publishing Health and Medical Research Impacts

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to provide relative citation ratio (RCR) benchmark data for cornea and external diseases specialists. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis. SUBJECTS: Subjects included were fellowship-trained cornea and external diseases faculty at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited institutions in the United States. METHODS: Academic specialists were indexed using the National Institutes of Health iCite Web site. Publication count, mean RCR score, and weighted RCR score were obtained between October 2022 and January 2023 by examining PubMed-listed publications from 1980 to 2022. Data were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were publication count, mean RCR value, and weighted RCR value. RESULTS: The cohort included 602 specialists from 112 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited institutions. These clinician-scientists produced highly impactful research with a median publication count of 15 (interquartile ranges 4-41), median RCR of 1.4 (interquartile ranges 0.91-1.88), and median-weighted RCR of 20.28 (5.3-66.69). Both academic rank and career length were associated with greater publication count and RCR values. Male sex was also associated with greater publications counts and RCR scores compared with female faculty. Acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy was associated with greater publication counts and weighted RCR scores but no difference in mean RCR scores. CONCLUSIONS: Academic cornea and external diseases specialists conduct high-impact research, with a median RCR of 1.4, exceeding the NIH standard value of 1. These data provide RCR benchmark data for the field to inform self, institutional, and departmental evaluations. These results also highlight a significant gender disparity in the field necessitating efforts to increase female representation and ensure equal opportunities.

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 — 5 citations exist upstream.

References

2005An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output 2016Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level 2008The state of h index research 2014Using Publication Metrics to Highlight Academic Productivity and Research Impact 2013Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons 2019The NIH Open Citation Collection: A public access, broad coverage resource 2012Standardizing the Evaluation of Scientific and Academic Performance in Neurosurgery—Critical Review of the “h” Index and its Variants 2010Survey of the h index for all of academic neurosurgery: another power-law phenomenon?

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.