Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T12:35:46.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of the academic productivity of the top 100 worldwide physicians in the field of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery using the Google Scholar h-index as the bibliometrics ranking system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2019

M T Kalcioglu ,
Y Ileri ,
O I Ozdamar ,
U Yilmaz  and
M Tekin
M T Kalcioglu*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Goztepe Training and Research Hospital, Turkey
Y Ileri
Affiliation:
Medical Faculty, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Turkey
O I Ozdamar
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Goztepe Training and Research Hospital, Turkey
U Yilmaz
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Goztepe Training and Research Hospital, Turkey
M Tekin
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Goztepe Training and Research Hospital, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Prof M Tayyar Kalcioglu, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Goztepe Training and Research Hospital, Dr Erkin Street, Kadikoy, Istanbul, Turkey E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +90 212 2874002
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The top 100 physicians of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery worldwide were investigated using the Google Scholar h-index.

Method

Although there are various bibliometrics ranking systems that present the academic quantity and quality of scientists’ published articles, the h-index is the most popular and widely accepted. In this study, Google Scholar was used to search all the keywords involving all the subspecialties of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery, with the aim of identifying as many physicians as possible. Obtaining the Google Scholar h-index and citations is not possible for scientists who do not have Google Scholar accounts. Thus, only those with Google Scholar accounts were included.

Results

The average h-index of all 100 physicians enrolled in the study was 37.83, with a range of 25–81.

Conclusion

The current study details the academic impact of otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery physicians worldwide based on the Google Scholar h-index.

Keywords

Academic DatabaseBibliometricsSpecialistsOtolaryngology
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 12 , December 2018 , pp. 1097 - 1101
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Prof M T Kalcioglu takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

Presented at the International Federation of ORL Societies ENT World Congress, 24–28 June 2017, Paris, France, and at the 5th Turkish National Otology and Neurotology Congress, 4–7 May 2017, Antalya, Turkey.

References

1Jamjoom, AA, Wiggins, AN, Loan, JJ, Emelifeoneu, J, Fouyas, IP, Brennan, PM. Academic productivity of neurosurgeons working in the United Kingdom: insights from the h-index and its variants. World Neurosurg 2016;86:287–93Google Scholar
2Venable, GT, Khan, NR, Taylor, DR, Thompson, CJ, Michael, LM, Klimo, P Jr. A correlation between National Institutes of Health funding and bibliometrics in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 2014;81:468–72Google Scholar
3Ortega, JL, Aguillo, IF. Mapping world-class universities on the web. Inf Process Manag 2009;45:272–9Google Scholar
4Minasny, B, Hartemink, AE, McBratney, A, Jang, HJ. Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. PeerJ 2013;22:e183Google Scholar
5Jamjoom, AB. Survey of h-index for neurosurgeons in Saudi Arabia. Neurosciences (Riyadh) 2015;20:392–5Google Scholar
6Tschudy, MM, Rowe, TL, Dover, GJ, Cheng, TL. Pediatric academic productivity: pediatric benchmarks for the h- and g-indices. J Pediatr 2016;169:272–6Google Scholar
7De Groote, SL, Raszewski, R. Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: a case study of the h-index in nursing. Nurs Outlook 2012;60:391–400Google Scholar
8Efron, N, Brennan, NA. Citation analysis of Australia-trained optometrists. Clin Exp Optom 2011;94:600–5Google Scholar
9Doja, A, Eady, K, Horsley, T, Bould, MD, Victor, JC, Sampson, M. The h-index in medical education: an analysis of medical education journal editorial boards. BMC Med Educ 2014;14:251Google Scholar
10Linder, SK, Kamath, GR, Pratt, GF, Saraykar, SS, Volk, RJ. Citation searches are more sensitive than keyword searches to identify studies using specific measurement instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:412–17Google Scholar
11Hirsch, JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005;102:16569–72Google Scholar
12Falagas, ME, Pitsouni, EI, Malietzis, GA, Pappas, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 2008;22:338–42Google Scholar
13Kulkarni, AV, Aziz, B, Shams, I, Busse, JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 2009;302:1092–6Google Scholar
14Wilkes, FA, Akram, H, Hyam, JA, Kitchen, ND, Hariz, MI, Zrinzo, L. Publication productivity of neurosurgeons in Great Britain and Ireland. J Neurosurg 2015;122:948–54Google Scholar
15Khan, NR, Thompson, CJ, Taylor, DR, Venable, GT, Wham, RM, Michael, LM 2nd et al. An analysis of publication productivity for 1225 academic neurosurgeons and 99 departments in the United States. J Neurosurg 2014;120:746–55Google Scholar
16Kalcioglu, MT, Ileri, Y, Ozdamar, OI, Yilmaz, U, Tekin, M. Google Academic evaluation of academic productivity compared to the h-index of otolaryngology experts in Turkey. In: 39th Turkish National Congress of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Proceedings. Antalya: Turkey, 2017Google Scholar
17Svider, PF, Choudhry, ZA, Choudhry, OJ, Baredes, S, Liu, JK, Eloy, JA. The use of the h-index in academic otolaryngology. Laryngoscope 2013;123:103–6Google Scholar
18Pagel, PS, Hudetz, JA. An analysis of scholarly productivity in United States academic anaesthesiologists by citation bibliometrics. Anaesthesia 2011;66:873–8Google Scholar
19Rezek, I, McDonald, RJ, Kallmes, DF. Is the h-index predictive of greater NIH funding success among academic radiologists? Acad Radiol 2011;18:1337–40Google Scholar
20Svider, PF, Mauro, KM, Sanghvi, S, Setzen, M, Baredes, S, Eloy, JA. Is NIH funding predictive of greater research productivity and impact among academic otolaryngologists? Laryngoscope 2013;123:118–22Google Scholar
21Lee, J, Kraus, KL, Couldwell, WT. Use of the H index in neurosurgery. Clinical article. J Neurosurg 2009;111:387–92Google Scholar