ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Research productivity of radiation therapy physics faculty in the United States.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fine wine, art, and medical physicist bibliometrics: Things that improve with age.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- The Society for Women in Radiation Oncology Medical Physicists: Where Are We Five Years Later?Cureus · 2026Article
- Research productivity of radiation therapy physics faculty in the United States.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Diversity and Professional Advancement in Medical Physics.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeResearch productivity metrics are important for decisions regarding hiring, retention, and promotion in academic medicine, and these metrics can vary widely among different disciplines. This article examines productivity metrics for radiation therapy physicists (RTP) in the United States. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Database searches were performed for RTP faculty at US institutions that have RTP residencies accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP). Demographics, academic rank, number of publications, academic career length, Hirsch index (h-index), m-quotient, and history of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding as a principal investigator (PI) were collected for each RTP. Logistic regression was performed to determine the probability of academic rank as a function of h-index and m-quotient. Statistical tests used included the Wilcoxon ranked sum test and the Pearson χ
resultsA total of 1038 faculty and staff were identified at 78 institutions with CAMPEP-accredited residencies. The average RTP academic career duration is 13.5 years, with 46.7 total publications, h-index of 10.7, and m-quotient of 0.66. Additionally, 10.5% of RTP have a history of NIH funding as a PI. Large disparities were found in academic productivity of doctoral-prepared physicists compared to those with a terminal master's degree. For differences in junior and senior faculty, statistical tests yielded significance in career duration, number of publications, h-index, and m-quotient. Gender disparities were identified in the overall distribution of RTP consistent with the membership of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Further gender disparities were found in the number of doctoral-prepared RTP and physicists in senior faculty roles.
conclusionsThis manuscript provides objective benchmark data regarding research productivity of academic RTP. These data may be of interest to faculty preparing for promotion, and also to institutional leadership.
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.