TY - JOUR
T1 - Does Formal Research Training Lead to Academic Success in Plastic Surgery? A Comprehensive Analysis of U.S. Academic Plastic Surgeons
AU - Lopez, Joseph
AU - Ameri, Afshin
AU - Susarla, Srinivas M.
AU - Reddy, Sashank
AU - Soni, Ashwin
AU - Tong, J. W.
AU - Amini, Neda
AU - Ahmed, Rizwan
AU - May, James W.
AU - Lee, W. P.Andrew
AU - Dorafshar, Amir
N1 - Funding Information:
Several objective assessment tools have been developed recently, which can be used to assess the effectiveness of formal research training. For example, several studies in the medical and surgical literature have assessed the application of quantitative metrics and have validated their use in evaluating a researcher’s contribution to their field. 3,9-11 Our group, among others, have recently validated the application of the Hirsh-index (h-index), and have found that it is highly associated with academic advancement. 12,13 As such, its potential as an adjunctive measure in screening candidates for academic posts, promotions, and future National Institutes of Health (NIH) extramural research grants has been advocated. 14 Furthermore, as procurement of NIH research grants is a symbol of scientific achievement in academic medicine, several publically available research grant databases can be utilized to determine the influence of a research fellowship on future grant funding. 15-17
Funding Information:
The outcome of interest, “academic success,” was defined by a primary variable (scientific productivity) and 2 secondary variables (academic rank and NIH funded or unfunded status). A proprietary bibliometric database (SCOPUS, Reed-Elsevier, London, UK) was used to examine each surgeon’s scientific productivity as measured by the h-index. 18 The h-index is defined as “the number of papers, h from a researcher with citation counts of h or greater for each paper,” (e.g., an author with an h-index of 5 has 5 publications that have each been cited at least 5 times). The h-index was devised by Hirsh in 2005, and has been validated for use in the physical and medical sciences, including plastic surgery. 19,20 The h-index score displayed in the “Create Citation Report” for each surgeon was recorded. The academic rank for each surgeon was reviewed and collected from the faculty member’s departmental websites. Rank was recorded as an ordinal variable (Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, and Endowed Professor). The NIH funded or unfunded status of each faculty member who met the inclusion or exclusion criteria was examined using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports website database. Funded status was defined as any surgeon who has been listed as a principal investigator, coinvestigator, or collaborator, and is actively or has previously received any grant funding from the NIH.
Funding Information:
Although dedicated research training has been shown to be a predictive factor for eventual pursuit of a career in academic plastic surgery, 4 no study has explored the influence of formal research training on future academic success. Intuitively, research training may improve the odds of future academic success. However, the benefits of such training have been assumed rather than investigated. 21 The objective of this study was to determine whether formalized research training is predictive of future academic success as defined by research productivity (measured using the h-index), NIH grant funding, and academic rank. We hypothesized that dedicated time in research training (either through a PhD training program or a postdoctoral research fellowship while or after residency) would be associated with academic success.
Funding Information:
Our study does have several limitations that warrant consideration. Our study defined academic “success” by following 3 metrics: (1) h-index, (2) NIH grant procurement, and (3) academic rank. However, academic “success” can be measured using numerous other parameters such as teaching, leadership, and clinical productivity—variables that were not measured in this study. Unfortunately, measurable metrics of these academic activities are difficult to obtain, and at times difficult to quantify. In this study, we used academic rank as an imperfect surrogate for evaluating these other academic activities. At academic institutions across the country, promotional committees incorporate a clinician’s effectiveness in teaching, clinical productivity, and research prowess when making promotional decisions. Therefore, we sought to use academic rank as proxy of these other parameters. However, we recognize the weakness of this surrogate and future studies should seek to formally incorporate objective measures of leadership, teaching, and clinical productivity to comprehensively assess academic achievement. Although the utility of the h-index has been studied quite extensively recently, we advocate its interpretation only within constraints of its limitations. 19 Our review of funding was limited to NIH research grant support. We decided to limit our review of funding to the NIH given it is the most prestigious and largest public financer of biomedical research in the country. 36 Finally, the present findings demonstrate a strong association between research training and academic achievement but they do not fully imply causality. Indeed, there might be an element of self-selection driving these results given that residents with a strong interest in academic plastic surgery might self-select to pursue formal research training as they are more intrinsically motivated to be academically productive. In fact, recent findings from Grewal et al. 4 provide support for this hypothesis.
PY - 2016/5/1
Y1 - 2016/5/1
N2 - Introduction It is currently unknown whether formal research training has an influence on academic advancement in plastic surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine whether formal research training was associated with higher research productivity, academic rank, and procurement of extramural National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in plastic surgery, comparing academic surgeons who completed said research training with those without. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of full-time academic plastic surgeons in the United States. The main predictor variable was formal research training, defined as completion of a postdoctoral research fellowship or attainment of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). The primary outcome was scientific productivity measured by the Hirsh-index (h-index, the number of publications, h that have at least h citations each). The secondary outcomes were academic rank and NIH funding. Descriptive, bivariate, and multiple regression statistics were computed. Results A total of 607 academic surgeons were identified from 94 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited plastic surgery training programs. In all, 179 (29.5%) surgeons completed formal research training. The mean h-index was 11.7 ± 9.9. And, 58 (9.6%) surgeons successfully procured NIH funding. The distribution of academic rank was the following: endowed professor (5.4%), professor (23.9%), associate professor (23.4%), assistant professor (46.0%), and instructor (1.3%). In a multiple regression analysis, completion of formal research training was significantly predictive of a higher h-index and successful procurement of NIH funding. Conclusion Current evidence demonstrates that formal research training is associated with higher scientific productivity and increased likelihood of future NIH funding.
AB - Introduction It is currently unknown whether formal research training has an influence on academic advancement in plastic surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine whether formal research training was associated with higher research productivity, academic rank, and procurement of extramural National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in plastic surgery, comparing academic surgeons who completed said research training with those without. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of full-time academic plastic surgeons in the United States. The main predictor variable was formal research training, defined as completion of a postdoctoral research fellowship or attainment of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). The primary outcome was scientific productivity measured by the Hirsh-index (h-index, the number of publications, h that have at least h citations each). The secondary outcomes were academic rank and NIH funding. Descriptive, bivariate, and multiple regression statistics were computed. Results A total of 607 academic surgeons were identified from 94 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited plastic surgery training programs. In all, 179 (29.5%) surgeons completed formal research training. The mean h-index was 11.7 ± 9.9. And, 58 (9.6%) surgeons successfully procured NIH funding. The distribution of academic rank was the following: endowed professor (5.4%), professor (23.9%), associate professor (23.4%), assistant professor (46.0%), and instructor (1.3%). In a multiple regression analysis, completion of formal research training was significantly predictive of a higher h-index and successful procurement of NIH funding. Conclusion Current evidence demonstrates that formal research training is associated with higher scientific productivity and increased likelihood of future NIH funding.
KW - academic practice
KW - h-index
KW - postdoctoral research training
KW - research training
KW - residency
KW - surgical training
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84953791563&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84953791563&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.12.001
DO - 10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.12.001
M3 - Article
C2 - 26796512
AN - SCOPUS:84953791563
VL - 73
SP - 422
EP - 428
JO - Journal of Surgical Education
JF - Journal of Surgical Education
SN - 1931-7204
IS - 3
ER -