Scientific output of professors and doctors habilitatus from Medical University of Silesia in Katowice – School of Medicine with Division of Dentistry in Zabrze
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Metabolic Bones Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Diabetology and Nephrology School of Medicine with the Division of Dentistry in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
 
2
Department and Chair of Pathomorphology, School of Medicine with the Division of Dentistry in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
 
3
Chair and Clinical Department of Paediatrics, School of Medicine with the Division of Dentistry in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
 
4
Department and Clinic of Internal Diseases, Diabetology and Nephrology, Metabolic Bone Diseases Unit, School of Medicine with the Division of Dentistry in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
 
 
Corresponding author
Wojciech Pluskiewicz   

Department of Metabolic Bones Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Diabetology and Nephrology School of Medicine with the Division of Dentistry in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, ul. 3 Maja 13/15, 41-800 Zabrze, tel. +48 32 370 44 88
 
 
Ann. Acad. Med. Siles. 2016;70:113-117
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Aim:
The purpose of the study was to present the scientific output of professors and doctors habilitatus and to assess the factors influencing scientific output.

Material and methods:
The data of scientific output (full text papers from the Web of Science and Scopus) of scientists were presented.

Results:
The mean scientist’s age was 55.7 ± 7.2 yrs, the mean age of receiving PhD 32.7 ± 3.2 yrs, the age of obtaining habilitation degree 45.8 ± 5.6 yrs, the age of attaining professorship 51.2 ± 5.9 yrs, the interval from PhD to habilitation 13.1 ± 4.9 yrs, the interval from habilitation to professorship 7.7 ± 2.7 yrs, the total number of publications 144.6 ± 124.2, the number of publications with an Impact Factor 33.8 ± 31.3, the total value of Impact Factor 61.7 ± 73.2, the citation index 387 ± 531 and index h 8.6 ± 5.3 according to the Web of Science, the citation index 513 ± 756 and index h 9.6 ± 6.0, according to Scopus, the citation index 411 ± 601 and index h 8.6 ± 5.2, according to Scopus without citations of all co-authors. In a correlation analysis, a lower age of habilitation (r ranged -0.29 to -0.36, p < 0.01) and of professorship (r ranged -0.31 to -0.42, p < 0.05) improved the scientific output. Shorter intervals from PhD to habilitation and from habilitation to professorship improved the scientific output as well (r ranged -0.25 to -0.34, p < 0.01, r ranged -0.41 to -0.53, p < 0.01, respectively).

Conclusions:
Scientific output increases with a lower age of habilitation and shorter intervals between PhD and habilitation and habilitation and professorship. The current results should help modify scientific politics supporting the total research impact of the whole division.

 
REFERENCES (10)
1.
Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2005; 102: 16569–16572.
 
2.
Bartneck C., Kokkelmans S. Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics 2011; 87: 85–98.
 
3.
Ahangar H.G., Siamian H., Yaminfirooz M. Evaluation of the scientific outputs of researchers with similar h index: a critical approach. Acta Inform. Med. 2014; 22: 255–258.
 
4.
Jeang K.T. H-index, mentoring-index, highly-cited and highly-accessed: how to evaluate scientists? Retrovirology 2008; 25(5): 106.
 
5.
Patel V.M., Asharafian H., Almoudaris A., Makanjuola J., Bucciarelli-Ducci C., Darzi A., Athanasiou T. Measuring academic performance for healthcare researchers with the h index: which search tool should be used? Med. Princ. Pract. 2013; 22: 178–183.
 
6.
Romanovsky A.A. Revised h index for biomedical research. Cell Cycle 2012; 11: 4118–4121.
 
7.
Sharma B., Boet S., Grantcharov T., Shin E., Barrowman N.J., Bould M.D. The h-index outperforms other bibliometrics in the assessment of research performance in general surgery: a province-wide study. Surgery 2013; 153: 493–501.
 
8.
Bornmann L., Daniel H.D. The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO Rep. 2009; 10(1): 2–6.
 
9.
Birks Y., Fairhurst C., Bloor K., Campbell M., Baird W., Torgerson D. Use of the h-index to measure the quality of the output of health services researchers. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 2014; 19: 102–109.
 
10.
Kulasegarah J., Fenton J.E. Comparison of the h index with standard bibliometric indicators to rank influential otolaryngologists in Europe and North America. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2010; 267: 455–458.
 
 
CITATIONS (1):
1.
Scientific output of professors and doctors habilitatus from Medical University of Silesia in Katowice – a comparison of two schools of medicine
Wojciech Pluskiewicz, Bogna Drozdzowska, Piotr Adamczyk, Roman Kuźniewicz
Annales Academiae Medicae Silesiensis
 
eISSN:1734-025X
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top