What Factors Contribute to the Academic Productivity of Plastic Surgeons?

Purpose: To identify academic characteristics that distinguish plastic surgery programs with high academic output as measured by citations, publications, and NIH funding.

Methods: Scholarly metrics were determined for 955 faculty at the 88 ACGME plastic surgery departments and divisions with residency programs. The database was binned into tertiles by numbers of citations per department/division (high, H, medium, M, low, L). Characteristics were compared between these groups to identify the traits that set these programs apart.  

Results: 955 faculty were identified among 88 programs. Median numbers of faculty per program were 9.  The mean publications per department/division were 479, citations; 9984, publications per faculty; 38, citations per faculty; 742.  Programs in H had higher numbers of publications even after adjusting for departmental size (H:59, M:33, L:21, p<0.05). Programs in the H group also had higher numbers of mean PhDs and MD-PhDs per division, and higher total numbers of NIH grants (H:7.5, M:1.2, L:0.1, p<0.05), and R01/P01/U01 grants (H:2.5, M:0.5, L:0, p<0.05). There were no differences in gender distribution across these groups. Programs in H had significantly more total residents H:11.9 vs. M:7.6 and L:6.1, p<0.05 which was mainly driven by higher numbers of integrated residents.

Conclusions: The strongest determinants of academic productivity among plastic surgery programs appear to be effective utilization of faculty with advanced degrees, emphasis on NIH funding, and the presence of integrated residency programs. A focus on NIH funding and the incorporation of integrated residency programs may be the optimal way to increase academic productivity in plastic surgery.