Anaesthesia 2012, 67, 185–196
Correspondence Measuring academic productivity I read with interest the editorial by Pandit [1] and the original article by Pagel and Hudetz [2] concerning the assessment of academic quality amongst anaesthesia researchers. I agree with many of Pandit’s conclusions based on our [3] and Pagel’s work. However, there are some issues that require further comment. Neither we, nor Pagel and Hude tz, investigated the h-index at the time of academic appointment, for two reasons. First, the context of publications has probably changed with time. As Pandit correctly poined out, the major researchers of the past may only have had one or two ‘big papers’ by the time of promotion. It is therefore not necessarily appropriate to compare the past with the present. Anecdotally, some universities appear to be using hindex thresholds for promotions, so the rules of the game may already have changed. Second, unlike in the US, there is no published list of UK professors of anaesthesia, let alone a list of when they were promoted, and h-indices are not straightforward to backdate. The question of whether non-clinical researchers should be included within the list of anaesthesia researchers is a matter for debate; we chose to include them for several reasons. First, some of the most important insights into clinical anaesthesia have come from non-clinical researchers [4–6]. Second, both within anaesthesia and
elsewhere, clinical researchers undertake significant basic science research [7, 8]. Are these people basic science researchers who do a bit of clinical or are they still clinical researchers? Third, the collaboration between clinical and non-clinical researchers within departments of anaesthesia, critical care and pain is vital to the future of ‘anaesthesia research’ and we would wish to value, rather than hide, the contributions from our non-clinical colleagues. These minor comments aside, we would agree wholeheartedly with Pandit that for academic anaesthesia to flourish it needs both an active readership and an active authorship. I. K. Moppett Queens Medical Centre Nottingham, UK Email:
[email protected] No external funding and no competing interests declared. Previously posted at the Anaesthesia Correspondence website: http://www.anaesthesiacorrespondence.com.
References 1. Pandit J. Measuring academic productivity: don’t drops your ‘h’s! Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 861–3. 2. Pagel PS, Hudetz JA. An analysis of scholarly productivity in United States academic anaesthesiologists by citation bibliometrics. Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 873–8. 3. Moppett IK, Hardman JG. Bibliometrics of anaesthesia researchers in the UK. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2011; 107: 351–6. 4. Mapleson WW. The elimination of rebreathing in various semi-closed anaesthetic systems. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1954; 26: 323–32.
5. Nickalls RW, Mapleson WW. Age-related isoMAC charts for isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane in man. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2003; 91: 170–4. 6. Flin R, Patey R, Glavin R, Maran N. Anaesthetists’ non-technical skills. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2010; 105: 38–44. 7. Dietis N, Guerrini R, Calo G, Salvadori S, Rowbotham DJ, Lambert DG. Simultaneous targeting of multiple opioid receptors: a strategy to improve side-effect profile. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2009; 103: 38–49. 8. Johnston GR, Webster NR. Cytokines and the immunomodulatory function of the vagus nerve. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2009; 102: 453–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.07030.x
A reply I thank Dr Moppett for his comments on my editorial [1] and for explaining some of the background to his important work [2]. I agree that it was correct to include basic scientists in his analysis of h-scores. Whilst I also agree with him that it is not straightforward to look back over h-scores, in fact it is quite possible to do so. For example, a graph of h-scores at time of professorial appointment plotted against the year in question would illustrate any trends over time. Finally, while Dr Moppett is correct to state there is no published list of UK professors of anaesthesia, the National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA) is in the process of publishing such a list. One difficulty now is that there is considerable inconsistency in who is awarded a professorial title, by whom and why. Being a ‘professor’ no longer implies that the person in ques-
A response to a previously published article or letter must be submitted via the dedicated correspondence website at www.anaesthesiacorrespondence.com, following the guidance there and using the online form (not uploaded as a Word attachment). Please note that a selection of this correspondence will be reproduced (possibly in modified form) in the Journal. Correspondence on new topics should be submitted as an email attachment to
[email protected]. Copy should be prepared in the usual style of the Correspondence section. Authors must follow the Guidance for Authors at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/anae, including completion and submission of an Author Declaration Form. Anaesthesia ª 2011 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland
185
