Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the research productivity of academic dermatologists based on the NIH-supported relative citation ratio

  • SHORT REPORT
  • Published:
Archives of Dermatological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently developed an article-level metric called the relative citation ratio (RCR). It improves upon prior metrics such as the h-index in that it is field-normalized, allowing for more accurate comparisons of author productivity between fields. The RCR is also a more accurate metric for evaluating early-career stage investigators. We sought to provide benchmark RCR data of academic dermatologists and examine how factors such as gender, degrees, and academic rank impact RCR scores. Academic dermatologists were indexed using the NIH iCite database. Gender, additional degrees, academic rank, total number of publications, mean RCR, and weighted RCR were collected for each dermatologist. Mean and weighted RCR scores were compared by gender, degrees, and academic rank, with P values based on multiple linear regression. 1899 dermatology faculty members were included in the analysis. Academic dermatologists had a median mean RCR of 1.12 (interquartile range/IQR 0.65–1.73) and a median weighted RCR of 18.89 (IQR 4.67–62.18). Full professorship as well as Doctor of Philosophy acquisition were associated with an increase in mean and weighted RCR scores. Male gender was associated with an increase in weighted RCR scores. Interestingly, male and female academic dermatologists along with assistant and associate professors had similar mean RCR scores. Limitations of the study include the inability to differentiate dermatologists with the same name. The iCite website also only includes PubMed-listed articles from 1995 to 2021. Overall, academic dermatologists have a median mean RCR value greater than the NIH benchmark value of 1.00, suggesting that their publications are more impactful compared to those published by the general scientific community. The benchmark data from this study may prove useful for self-evaluation and also grant, hiring, and promotional decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Koltun V, Hafner D (2021) The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation. PLoS ONE 16(6):e0253397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2009) The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO Rep 10(1):2–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2008.233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Surkis A, Spore S (2018) The relative citation ratio: what is it and why should medical librarians care? J Med Libr Assoc 106(4):508–513. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.499

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Reddy V, Gupta A, White MD et al (2020) Assessment of the NIH-supported relative citation ratio as a measure of research productivity among 1687 academic neurological surgeons. J Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.11.JNS192679 (Published online January 31, 2020)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hutchins BI, Yuan X, Anderson JM, Santangelo GM (2016) Relative citation ratio (RCR): a new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level. PLoS Biol 14(9):e1002541. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Rock CB, Prabhu AV, Fuller CD, Thomas CR, Holliday EB (2018) Evaluation of the relative citation ratio, a new national institutes of health-supported bibliometric measure of research productivity, among academic radiation oncologists. J Am Coll Radiol 15(3):469–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.11.006

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel PA, Patel KK, Gopali R, Reddy A, Bogorad D, Bollinger K (2022) The relative citation ratio: examining a novel measure of research productivity among southern academic ophthalmologists. Semin Ophthalmol 37(2):195–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2021.1953543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shih AF, Sun W, Yick C, Xu S, Fujiwara RJT, Colegio OR (2019) Trends in scholarly productivity of dermatology faculty by academic status and gender. J Am Acad Dermatol 80(6):1774–1776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.10.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stewart C, Lipner SR (2020) Gender and race trends in academic rank of dermatologists at top U.S. institutions: a cross-sectional study. Int J Women’s Dermatol 6(4):283–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.04.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lu JD, Tiwana S, Das P, Siddiqi J, Khosa F (2020) Gender and racial underrepresentation in academic dermatology positions in the United States: a retrospective, cross-sectional study from 2007 to 2018. J Am Acad Dermatol 83(5):1513–1516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2020.06.067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sachdeva M, Price KN, Hsiao JL, Shi VY (2020) Gender and rank salary trends among academic dermatologists. Int J Womens Dermatol 6(4):324–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.05.005

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Sadeghpour M, Bernstein I, Ko C, Jacobe H (2012) Role of Sex in academic dermatology: results from a national survey. Arch Dermatol 148(7):809–814. https://doi.org/10.1001/archdermatol.2011.3617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhu EY, Shemesh S, Iatridis JC, Moucha CS (2017) The association between scholarly impact and National Institutes of Health funding in orthopaedic surgery. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013) 75(4):257–263

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford Street, Suite 200, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Charles B. Lau, Luka Machavariani & Gideon P. Smith

  2. Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

    Charles B. Lau

  3. Center for Clinical Investigation, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Guohai Zhou

Authors
  1. Charles B. Lau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luka Machavariani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guohai Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gideon P. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CL and LM wrote the main manuscript text. CL and GZ completed statistical analysis. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles B. Lau.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lau, C.B., Machavariani, L., Zhou, G. et al. Evaluating the research productivity of academic dermatologists based on the NIH-supported relative citation ratio. Arch Dermatol Res 315, 1435–1438 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-022-02485-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-022-02485-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation