Departments of 1 Neurosurgery and.
Department of Neurosurgery, Gates Vascular Institute at Kaleida Health; and.
J Neurosurg. 2017 Nov;127(5):1181-1189. doi: 10.3171/2016.9.JNS161857. Epub 2017 Jan 13.
OBJECTIVE Publication has become a major criterion of success in the competitive academic environment of neurosurgery. This is the first study that has used departmental h index-and e index-based matrices to assess the academic output of neuroendovascular, neurointerventional, and interventional radiology fellowship programs across the continental US. METHODS Fellowship program listings were identified from academic and organization websites. Details for 37 programs were available. Bibliometric data for these programs were gathered from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. Citations for each publication from the fellowship's parent department were screened, and the h and e indices were calculated from non-open-surgical, central nervous system vascular publications. Variables including "high-productivity" centers, fellowship-comprehensive stroke center affiliation, fellowship accreditation status, neuroendovascular h index, e index ( h index supplement), h10 index (publications during the last 10 years), and departmental faculty-based h indices were created and analyzed. RESULTS A positive correlation was seen between the neuroendovascular fellowship h index and corresponding h10 index (R = 0.885; p < 0.0001). The mean, median, and highest faculty-based h indices exhibited positive correlations with the neuroendovascular fellowship h index (R = 0.662, p < 0.0001; R = 0.617, p < 0.0001; and R = 0.649, p < 0.0001, respectively). There was no significant difference (p = 0.824) in the median values for the fellowship h index based on comprehensive stroke center affiliation (30 of 37 programs had such affiliations) or accreditation (18 of 37 programs had accreditation) (p = 0.223). Based on the quartile analysis of the fellowship h index, 10 of 37 departments had an neuroendovascular h index of ≥ 54 ("high-productivity" centers); these centers had significantly more faculty (p = 0.013) and a significantly higher mean faculty h index (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS The departmental h index and analysis of its publication topics can be used to calculate the h index of an associated subspecialty. The analysis was focused on the neuroendovascular specialty, and this methodology can be extended to other neurosurgical subspecialties. Individual faculty research interest is directly reflected in the research productivity of a department. High-productivity centers had significantly more faculty with significantly higher individual h indices. The current systems for neuroendovascular fellowship program accreditation do not have a meaningful impact on academic productivity.
在竞争激烈的神经外科学术环境中，发表已成为成功的主要标准。这是第一项使用部门 h 指数和 e 指数矩阵评估美国大陆神经血管内、神经介入和介入放射学奖学金项目学术成果的研究。
从学术和组织网站确定奖学金计划清单。有 37 个计划的详细信息可用。从汤森路透 Web of Science 数据库收集这些计划的计量数据。筛选每个奖学金计划所属部门出版物的引文，并从非开放性手术、中枢神经系统血管出版物中计算 h 和 e 指数。创建并分析了变量，包括“高生产力”中心、奖学金-综合卒中中心附属机构、奖学金认证状态、神经血管内 h 指数、e 指数（h 指数补充）、h10 指数（过去 10 年的出版物）以及基于部门教员的 h 指数。
神经血管内科学奖学金 h 指数与相应的 h10 指数呈正相关（R = 0.885；p < 0.0001）。平均、中位数和最高教员 h 指数与神经血管内科学奖学金 h 指数呈正相关（R = 0.662，p < 0.0001；R = 0.617，p < 0.0001；R = 0.649，p < 0.0001）。基于综合卒中中心附属机构（37 个计划中有 30 个具有此类附属机构）或认证（37 个计划中有 18 个具有认证）的奖学金 h 指数中位数（p = 0.824）无显著差异（p = 0.223）。基于奖学金 h 指数的四分位分析，37 个部门中有 10 个神经血管内科学 h 指数≥54（“高生产力”中心）；这些中心的教员人数明显更多（p = 0.013），平均教员 h 指数也明显更高（p = 0.0001）。
部门 h 指数及其出版主题分析可用于计算相关亚专业的 h 指数。该分析侧重于神经血管内科学专业，并且该方法可以扩展到其他神经外科学亚专业。个别教员的研究兴趣直接反映在部门的研究生产力上。高生产力中心的教员人数明显更多，个人 h 指数明显更高。目前的神经血管内科学奖学金计划认证系统对学术生产力没有有意义的影响。
