ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2018
Evaluation of the Relative Citation Ratio, a New National Institutes of Health-Supported Bibliometric Measure of Research Productivity, among Academic Radiation Oncologists.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gender disparities in academic radiation oncology research: A narrative review.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2027Review
- Bibliometrics and National Institutes of Health Funding: Associated Factors in Academic Rhinology.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2025Article
- Research Productivity and Impact in Foot and Ankle Surgery: Insights From Relative Citation Ratio Analysis of Recent Fellowship Graduates.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Article
- Evaluating the research productivity of academic dermatologists based on the NIH-supported relative citation ratio.Archives of dermatological research · 2023Article
- Use of the Relative Citation Ratio in Conjunction With H-Index to Promote Equity in Academic Orthopaedics.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2023Article
- The Relative Citation Ratio: Evaluating a New Measure of Scientific Influence Among Academic Sports Medicine Surgeons.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- The Relative Citation Ratio: A Modern Approach to Assessing Academic Productivity within Plastic Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health-supported relative citation ratio among American orthopedic spine surgery faculty: A new bibliometric measure of scientific influence.North American Spine Society journal · 2022Article
- Article
- Evaluating the Academic Influence of Orthopedic Surgeons in Spinal Literature Through Relative Citation Ratio.Cureus · 2022Article
- Root Canal Disinfection Articles with the Highest Relative Citation Ratios. A Bibliometric Analysis from 1990 to 2019.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The relative citation ratio and the h-index among academic ophthalmologists: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Article
- Measuring Scholarly Productivity: A Primer for Junior Faculty. Part III: Understanding Publication Metrics.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2018Review
- The relative citation ratio: what is it and why should medical librarians care?Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePublication metrics are useful in evaluating academic faculty for awarding grants, recruitment, and promotion. A new metric, the relative citation ratio (RCR), was recently released by the National Institutes of Health (NIH); however, no benchmark data yet exist. We sought to create benchmark data for physician faculty in academic radiation oncology (RO) and analyze correlations associated with increased academic productivity.
methodsCitation database searches were performed for all US radiation oncologists affiliated with academic RO programs. Gender, NIH funding, career duration, academic rank, RCR, and weighted RCR were collected for each faculty. RCR and weighted RCR were calculated and compared between each subgroup of interest. RCR percentiles were also created for reference.
resultsA total of 1,299 RO physician faculty members from 75 institutions were included in the analysis. Overall, RO physician were very productive and influential with a mean RCR of 1.57 ± 1.53 SD and median RCR (interquartile range) of 1.32 (0.87-1.94). Academic rank, career duration, and NIH funding were associated with increased mean RCR and weighted RCR. Male gender and having a PhD were associated with an increased weighted RCR but not an increased mean RCR.
conclusionsCurrent academic radiation oncologists have a high mean RCR value relative to the benchmark NIH RCR value of 1. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value above 1 with professor or chair and previous NIH funding having the highest RCR and weighted RCR values overall. These data may be useful for self-evaluation of ROs as well as evaluation of faculty by institutional and departmental leaders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.