An Analysis of Bibliometric Indicators, National Institutes of Health Funding, and Faculty Size at Association of American Medical Colleges Medical Schools, 1997-2007

Overview

Journal J Med Libr Assoc

Date 2008 Nov 5

PMID 18979684

Citations 20

Authors

Dean Hendrix

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to analyze bibliometric data from ISI, National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funding data, and faculty size information for Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) member schools during 1997 to 2007 to assess research productivity and impact.

Methods: This study gathered and synthesized 10 metrics for almost all AAMC medical schools(n=123): (1) total number of published articles per medical school, (2) total number of citations to published articles per medical school, (3) average number of citations per article, (4) institutional impact indices, (5) institutional percentages of articles with zero citations, (6) annual average number of faculty per medical school, (7) total amount of NIH funding per medical school, (8) average amount of NIH grant money awarded per faculty member, (9) average number of articles per faculty member, and (10)average number of citations per faculty member. Using principal components analysis, the author calculated the relationships between measures, if they existed.

Results: Principal components analysis revealed 3 major clusters of variables that accounted for 91% of the total variance: (1) institutional research productivity, (2) research influence or impact, and (3)individual faculty research productivity. Depending on the variables in each cluster, medical school research may be appropriately evaluated in a more nuanced way. Significant correlations exist between extracted factors, indicating an interrelatedness of all variables. Total NIH funding may relate more strongly to the quality of the research than the quantity of the research. The elimination of medical schools with outliers in 1 or more indicators (n=20)altered the analysis considerably.

Conclusions: Though popular, ordinal rankings cannot adequately describe the multidimensional nature of a medical school's research productivity and impact. This study provides statistics that can be used in conjunction with other sound methodologies to provide a more authentic view of a medical school's research. The large variance of the collected data suggests that refining bibliometric data by discipline, peer groups, or journal information may provide a more precise assessment.

Citing Articles

What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research.

Abudu R, Oliver K, Boaz A Health Res Policy Syst. 2022; 20(1):88.

PMID: 35945538 PMC: 9361261. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00888-1.

Achievements and Visibility of Scientific Publications of All Peruvian Medical Schools: A 5-Year Scientometric Analyses.

Mayta-Tovalino F, Pacheco-Mendoza J, Bardales-Garcia J, Alvitez J, Temoche A, Mendoza R Biomed Res Int. 2022; 2022:9097379.

PMID: 35509715 PMC: 9061002. DOI: 10.1155/2022/9097379.

The association of hospital research publications and clinical quality.

Shahian D, McCloskey D, Liu X, Schneider E, Cheng D, Mort E Health Serv Res. 2022; 57(3):587-597.

PMID: 35124806 PMC: 9108066. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13947.

A bibliometric analysis of pandemic and epidemic studies in economics: future agenda for COVID-19 research.

Mahi M, Mobin M, Habib M, Akter S Soc Sci Humanit Open. 2021; 4(1):100165.

PMID: 34927059 PMC: 8665228. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100165.

Are trauma research programs in academic and non-academic centers measured by equal standards? A survey of 137 level I trauma centers in the United States.

Madayag R, Sercy E, Berg G, Banton K, Carrick M, Lieser M Patient Saf Surg. 2021; 15(1):34.

PMID: 34627343 PMC: 8501921. DOI: 10.1186/s13037-021-00309-2.

References

Mela G, Cimmino M, Ugolini D . Impact assessment of oncology research in the European Union. Eur J Cancer. 2000; 35(8):1182-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00107-0. View

Bansard J, Rebholz-Schuhmann D, Cameron G, Clark D, van Mulligen E, Beltrame E . Medical informatics and bioinformatics: a bibliometric study. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2007; 11(3):237-43. PMC: 2191144. DOI: 10.1109/titb.2007.894795. View

Wallin J . Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2005; 97(5):261-75. DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto_139.x. View

Lopez-Illescas C, de Moya-Anegon F, Moed H . The actual citation impact of European oncological research. Eur J Cancer. 2007; 44(2):228-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.10.020. View

Lundberg J, Brommels M, Skar J, Tomson G . Measuring the validity of early health technology assessment: bibliometrics as a tool to indicate its scientific basis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008; 24(1):70-5. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462307080099. View

Chen T, Chou L, Chen T . World trend of peritoneal dialysis publications. Perit Dial Int. 2007; 27(2):173-8. View

Oelrich B, Peters R, Jung K . A bibliometric evaluation of publications in urological journals among European Union countries between 2000-2005. Eur Urol. 2007; 52(4):1238-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.06.050. View

Lee K, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero L . Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA. 2002; 287(21):2805-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2805. View

Ugolini D, Casilli C, Mela G . Assessing oncological productivity. is one method sufficient?. Eur J Cancer. 2002; 38(8):1121-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00025-4. View

10.

Hirsch J . An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102(46):16569-72. PMC: 1283832. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102. View

11.

Kinney A . National scientific facilities and their science impact on nonbiomedical research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; 104(46):17943-7. PMC: 2084276. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0704416104. View

12.

Epstein R . Journal impact factors do not equitably reflect academic staff performance in different medical subspecialties. J Investig Med. 2005; 52(8):531-6. DOI: 10.1136/jim-52-08-25. View

13.

Nieminen P, Rucker G, Miettunen J, Carpenter J, Schumacher M . Statistically significant papers in psychiatry were cited more often than others. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60(9):939-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.014. View

14.

Skram U, LARSEN B, Ingwersen P, Viby-Mogensen J . Scandinavian research in anaesthesiology 1981-2000: visibility and impact in EU and world context. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004; 48(8):1006-13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2004.00447.x. View

15.

Falagas M, Karavasiou A, Bliziotis I . A bibliometric analysis of global trends of research productivity in tropical medicine. Acta Trop. 2006; 99(2-3):155-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2006.07.011. View

16.

Glover S, Bowen S . Bibliometric analysis of research published in Tropical Medicine and International Health 1996-2003. Trop Med Int Health. 2004; 9(12):1327-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2004.01331.x. View

17.

Navarro A, Lynd F . Where does research occur in geriatrics and gerontology?. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005; 53(6):1058-63. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53311.x. View

18.

Coleman R . Impact factors: use and abuse in biomedical research. Anat Rec. 1999; 257(2):54-7. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0185(19990415)257:2<54::AID-AR5>3.0.CO;2-P. View

19.

Lewison G, Grant J, Jansen P . International gastroenterology research: subject areas, impact, and funding. Gut. 2001; 49(2):295-302. PMC: 1728416. DOI: 10.1136/gut.49.2.295. View

20.

Garcia-Garcia P, Lopez-Munoz F, Callejo J, Martin-Agueda B, Alamo C . Evolution of Spanish scientific production in international obstetrics and gynecology journals during the period 1986-2002. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005; 123(2):150-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.06.039. View