The Impact of Fellowship Training on Peer-Reviewed Publication Productivity in Academic Anesthesiologists as Evaluated by the h-Index.

Acsa M Zavala, Jagtar Singh Heir, Juan P Cata, Lei Feng, Jose M Soliz
{"title":"The Impact of Fellowship Training on Peer-Reviewed Publication Productivity in Academic Anesthesiologists as Evaluated by the h-Index.","authors":"Acsa M Zavala, Jagtar Singh Heir, Juan P Cata, Lei Feng, Jose M Soliz","doi":"10.52519/aceqi.25.1.1.a8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effect of anesthesiology fellowships on scholarly contributions has been minimally studied. In this study we analyzed differences in h-index between fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained anesthesiologists, as well as by type of fellowship, academic rank, and years in practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All anesthesiologists on staff between September 1, 2021, and August 31, 2022, were included in this study. The variables collected were fellowship training status, h-index, total number of publications, years in practice, academic rank, and years at the institution. For analysis, the anesthesiologists were divided into 2 groups: those with fellowship training and those without.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 78 anesthesiologists, 40 were not fellowship-trained and 38 were, with 10 types of anesthesiology fellowships identified. The h-index and number of publications did not differ between fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained anesthesiologists, and the number of publications per years in practice did not differ by fellowship type. The number of publications per years in practice was higher in the fellowship-trained group than in the non-fellowship-trained group (1.2 ± 1.1 vs. 0.71 ± 0.6; P = .04), as was the number of publications per years in practice at our institution (1.5 ± 1.1 compared with 0.9 ± 0.9; P = .0093).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Fellowship training among academic anesthesiologists was not associated with a difference in h-index. However, fellowship training was associated with a higher number of publications per years in practice. Further research could elucidate the usefulness of h-index to support career development and contributions of anesthesiologists in academia.</p>","PeriodicalId":520864,"journal":{"name":"Advances in cancer education and quality improvement","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12126212/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in cancer education and quality improvement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52519/aceqi.25.1.1.a8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The effect of anesthesiology fellowships on scholarly contributions has been minimally studied. In this study we analyzed differences in h-index between fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained anesthesiologists, as well as by type of fellowship, academic rank, and years in practice.

Methods: All anesthesiologists on staff between September 1, 2021, and August 31, 2022, were included in this study. The variables collected were fellowship training status, h-index, total number of publications, years in practice, academic rank, and years at the institution. For analysis, the anesthesiologists were divided into 2 groups: those with fellowship training and those without.

Results: Among 78 anesthesiologists, 40 were not fellowship-trained and 38 were, with 10 types of anesthesiology fellowships identified. The h-index and number of publications did not differ between fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained anesthesiologists, and the number of publications per years in practice did not differ by fellowship type. The number of publications per years in practice was higher in the fellowship-trained group than in the non-fellowship-trained group (1.2 ± 1.1 vs. 0.71 ± 0.6; P = .04), as was the number of publications per years in practice at our institution (1.5 ± 1.1 compared with 0.9 ± 0.9; P = .0093).

Conclusion: Fellowship training among academic anesthesiologists was not associated with a difference in h-index. However, fellowship training was associated with a higher number of publications per years in practice. Further research could elucidate the usefulness of h-index to support career development and contributions of anesthesiologists in academia.

h指数评价的学术麻醉师奖学金培训对同行评议出版效率的影响。
背景:麻醉学奖学金对学术贡献的影响研究很少。在这项研究中,我们分析了接受过奖学金培训的麻醉师和未接受过奖学金培训的麻醉师之间的h指数差异,以及奖学金类型、学术等级和实践年限的差异。方法:选取于2021年9月1日至2022年8月31日在我院工作的所有麻醉医师。收集的变量包括奖学金培训状态、h指数、出版物总数、实践年数、学术排名和在机构工作的年数。为了进行分析,将麻醉师分为两组:接受过实习培训的麻醉师和没有接受过实习培训的麻醉师。结果:78名麻醉医师中,未接受培训的40名,接受培训的38名,共有10种麻醉医师培训。h指数和出版物数量在接受过研究金培训的麻醉师和没有接受过研究金培训的麻醉师之间没有差异,每年的出版物数量也没有因研究金类型而有所不同。研究金培训组每年实际发表的论文数量高于非研究金培训组(1.2±1.1 vs 0.71±0.6;P = .04),我们机构实践中每年发表的论文数量(1.5±1.1篇比0.9±0.9篇;P = .0093)。结论:学术麻醉师的奖学金培训与h指数的差异无关。但是,在实践中,研究金培训与每年较高的出版物数量有关。进一步的研究可以阐明h指数在支持麻醉医师职业发展和学术贡献方面的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信