ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Fine wine, art, and medical physicist bibliometrics: Things that improve with age.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBibliometric indicators are widely used to evaluate faculty productivity, yet these metrics change with career stage, evolving authorship practices, and technological shifts in how science is produced. This study examines patterns of scholarly output among radiation therapy medical physics faculty at leading cancer centers and provides a framework and quantitative metrics for managing career age- and era-based effects.
methodsPeer-reviewed articles (1969-2025) were collected from Scopus for 397 Ph.D. medical physics faculty at the 20 U.S. cancer centers most highly ranked by US News and World Report in 2025. The bibliometric measures included annual rates of authorships (
resultsProductivity increased substantially with career age, peaking in late career. Senior faculty produced approximately two-fold higher annual output than early-career peers. At career ages of 1, 10, 20, 30, and 40 years, the median bibliometric rates were
conclusionsScholarly productivity in radiation therapy medical physics is strongly dependent on career age, with peak output occurring near the end of a typical career before declining modestly near retirement. Career-age-based percentile benchmarks provide a more balanced framework for evaluating academic performance than unadjusted bibliometric comparisons, especially for early-career investigators. Due to changes in authorship norms over time, first/last authorships, monograph equivalents, and ha-index may provide more accurate and equitable assessments of research performance than authorships or h-index.
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.