Standardizing the evaluation of scientific and academic performance in neurosurgery - Critical review of the "h" index and its variants

Salah G. Aoun, Bernard R. Bendok, Rudy J. Rahme, Ralph G. Dacey, H. Hunt Batjer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalWorld Neurosurgery
Volume80
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2013

Fingerprint

Peer Review
Neurosurgery
Journal Impact Factor
Physicians
Mathematics
Physics
Medicine

Keywords

  • "h" index
  • Academic output
  • Impact factor
  • Neurosurgery
  • Peer-review
  • Promotion
  • Research
  • Tenure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Standardizing the evaluation of scientific and academic performance in neurosurgery - Critical review of the "h" index and its variants. / Aoun, Salah G.; Bendok, Bernard R.; Rahme, Rudy J.; Dacey, Ralph G.; Batjer, H. Hunt.

In: World Neurosurgery, Vol. 80, No. 5, 11.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9d1016e4a10145d48740b90bfb4be2e9,
title = "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.",
keywords = "{"}h{"} index, Academic output, Impact factor, Neurosurgery, Peer-review, Promotion, Research, Tenure",
author = "Aoun, {Salah G.} and Bendok, {Bernard R.} and Rahme, {Rudy J.} and Dacey, {Ralph G.} and Batjer, {H. Hunt}",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.wneu.2012.01.052",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "80",
journal = "World Neurosurgery",
issn = "1878-8750",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Standardizing the evaluation of scientific and academic performance in neurosurgery - Critical review of the "h" index and its variants

AU - Aoun, Salah G.

AU - Bendok, Bernard R.

AU - Rahme, Rudy J.

AU - Dacey, Ralph G.

AU - Batjer, H. Hunt

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - "h" index

KW - Academic output

KW - Impact factor

KW - Neurosurgery

KW - Peer-review

KW - Promotion

KW - Research

KW - Tenure

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84888644759&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84888644759&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.wneu.2012.01.052

DO - 10.1016/j.wneu.2012.01.052

M3 - Article

C2 - 22381859

AN - SCOPUS:84888644759

VL - 80

JO - World Neurosurgery

JF - World Neurosurgery

SN - 1878-8750

IS - 5

ER -