ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
Social network analysis as a new tool to measure academic impact of physicians.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Invisible conflicts: the impact of covert academic bullying among "Double First-Class" young medical teachers on academic output-a qualitative study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Social network analysis as a new tool to measure academic impact of physicians.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: H-index is a widely used metric quantifying a researcher's productivity and impact based on an author's publications and citations. Though convenient to calculate, h-index fails to incorporate collaborations and interrelationships between physicians into its assessment of academic impact, leading to limited insight into grouped networks. We present social network analysis as a tool to measure relationships between physicians and quantify their academic impact. Methods: A bibliometric multicenter analysis was conducted on physician faculty from 129 US ACGME accredited otolaryngology programs who have publications with a physician co-author in the field. Using web searches, 2494 physician faculty were identified. Scopus IDs, h-indices, and publication data for these physicians were identified using multiple Elsevier APIs queried in December 2023. Publications with multiple otolaryngology physician co-authors were included. Network and sub network maps were generated using Gephi and analyzed with custom R scripts. Centrality measures (degree, PageRank, betweenness centralities) quantified collaboration propensity. Non-parametric correlation analysis between centrality measures and h-index was conducted. Sankey diagrams were plotted using ggplot2. Results: A co-authorship network of 2259 physicians was constructed. Physicians were visualized as nodes with collaborations as links. Centrality measures correlated strongly with h-index (h-index vs. degree centrality: Conclusion: Social network analysis showed moderate correlation between social connectedness measures and h-index, supporting its use in measuring academic impact. In otolaryngology, collaborative interactions within the academic community are strongly shaped by sub-specialty affiliation and academic institution.
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.