Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role and Impact of Bibliometric Analysis of Research Productivity in Faculty Evaluation, Recruitment, Promotion, Reappointment, Benchmarking, and in Mission-Based Management (MBM): Experience of the Faculty of Medicine at the American University of Beirut (AUB), 1997–2007

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Major Challenges Facing Higher Education in the Arab World: Quality Assurance and Relevance

Abstract

The use of bibliometrics in research evaluation is rapidly gaining popularity and importance. It is becoming an essential tool to assess and stimulate research productivity, guide decisions in research funding and benchmark with peer institutions.

This chapter focuses on bibliometric analysis of research performance in the Faculty of Medicine (FM) at the American University of Beirut (AUB). Data are obtained from the Curriculum Vitae and the databases of Scopus and ISI Web of Science. Performance of the FM is compared to similar data obtained from 1997 to 2007 for 123 medical schools registered at the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC). The indicators applied include: number of papers, total number of citations, average citations per paper, percentile journal ranking per discipline, impact factor (IF), Adjusted IF (Adjusted IF is the Journal Impact Factor (IF) adjusted for the type of publication and author position of each investigator), impact index, and funding. Collaboration patterns within and among the departments at the FM are presented.

The targets established for FM can be partially attributed to increasing, as per Scopus, the number of articles by 4.7-fold, the number of articles per faculty per year by 4.0-fold, and extramural funding by 3.7-fold, in 10 years. This improved the quality of research productivity at promotion without decreasing promotion success rate, and increased the number of faculty members eligible for tenure or long-term contract. The average amount of funding required at FM per investigator to achieve the set target is determined.

Applying a basket of bibliometric indicators provides an overview of the research productivity of the investigator, department and medical school. Bibliometrics complement rather than replace peer assessment, they guide decision-making and facilitate benchmarking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Renamed Joint commission (JC) in 2007 and established the Joint Commission International (JCI) for international institutions.

  2. 2.

    The Emergency Department (ED) was established in 2004 and was not included in all data for this Chapter.

  3. 3.

    Sami Cortas, Karam Rizk and Joe Max Wakim built the in-house software and packages of the Hospital Management and information Systems.

  4. 4.

    MyEvaluations.com and MyGME, latter for Graduate Medical Education, are registered trademarks of MyEvaluations.com Inc. © 1998–2018. U.S. Patent #7, 899,702. All rights reserved.

  5. 5.

    Blue eXplorance, Copyright 2018 © eXplorance Inc. All rights reserved.

  6. 6.

    A professional service firm and one of the big four auditors worldwide. The name “KPMG” stands for “Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler.”

  7. 7.

    The group in neurosciences at FM/AUBMC is an example, that also linked with investigators in the Faculty of Engineering.

  8. 8.

    NIH website.

  9. 9.

    Judith S. Palfrey, MD, The T. Berry Brazelton Professor of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School. Chief, Division of General Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital Boston, letter to Dean Nadim Cortas dated December 18, 2007.

  10. 10.

    Richard A. Kozarek, M.D. Professor of Medicine, Director of Digestive Disease Institute, Chair of GI research, Virginia Mason Medical Center. Letter dated October 27, 2006.

  11. 11.

    The unmodified university track was renamed in the policy approved in 2012, the investigators track with scientist investigator and physician investigator sub-tracks.

  12. 12.

    Suffixed clinical track was renamed in the 2012 policy as the Physician-educator track.

  13. 13.

    Prefixed clinical track was renamed in the 2012 policy as the Academic Clinician track.

  14. 14.

    Full Time Equivalent (FTE) is full-time effort given for a defined function e.g. if three faculty members give 40%, 25% and 35% effort respectively for a function e.g. research, the three will constitute one FTE of research.

  15. 15.

    The Academic Review Team included. Paul Griner, M.D., Chair, J. Robert Buchanan, M.D. Ramsey Cotran, M.D. Linda Lewis, M.D. George Thibault, M.D. Torsten Wiesel, M.D. Their Report submitted to AUB in 1999 also describes the Research Core Facilities at the FM as “state of the Art.”

  16. 16.

    The Joint Commission Worldwide and Health Care Consultants, USA, were invited by President John Waterbury in 1998 to review the AUBMC, and concluded their work by an extensive report entitled “AUBMC, Strategic and Operational Assessment”.

References

  1. Nutter, D. O., Bond, J. S., Coller, B. S., D’Alessandri, R. M., Gewertz, B. L., Nora, L. M., Perkins, J. P., Shomaker, T. S., & Watson, R. T. (2000). Measuring faculty effort and contributions in medical education. Academic Medicine, 75, 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Holmes, E. W., Burks, T. F., Dzau, V., Hindery, M. A., Jones, R. F., Kaye, C. I., Korn, D., Limbird, L. E., Marchase, R. B., Perlmutter, R., Sanfilippo, F., & Strom, B. L. (2000). Measuring contributions to the research mission of medical schools. Academic Medicine, 75, 303–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cohen, J. J. (2000). Introducing the mission-based management resource materials. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Watson, R. T., & Romrell, L. J. (1999). Mission-based budgeting: Removing a graveyard. Academic Medicine, 74, 627–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Howell, L. P., Hogarth, M. A., & Anders, T. F. (2003). Implementing a mission-based reporting system at an academic health center: A method for mission enhancement. Academic Medicine, 78, 645–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mallon, W. T., & Jones, R. F. (2002). How do medical schools use measurement systems to track faculty activity and productivity in teaching? Academic Medicine, 77, 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bardes, C. L., & Hayes, J. G. (1995). Are the teachers teaching? Measuring the educational activities of clinical faculty. Academic Medicine, 70, 111–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hilton, C., Fisher, W., Jr., Lopez, A., & Sanders, C. (1997). A relative-value-based system for calculating faculty productivity in teaching, research, administration, and patient care. Academic Medicine, 72, 787–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fink, I. (2004). Research space: Who needs it, who gets it, who pays for it? Planning for Higher Education, 33, 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Monastersky, R. (2005). The number that’s devouring science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 14; 52, A12.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fassoulaki, A., Sarantopoulos, C., Papilas, K., Patris, K., & Melemeni, A. (2001). Academic anesthesiologists’ views on the importance of the impact factor of scientific journals: A North American and European survey. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia, 48, 953–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Iyengar, R., Wang, Y., Chow, J., & Charney, D. S. (2009). An integrated approach to evaluate faculty members’ research performance. Academic Medicine, 84, 1610–1616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tague-Stucliffe, J. (1992). An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing and Management: An International Journal – Special Issue on Informetrics, 28(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122, 108–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hutchins, I. B., Yuan, X., Anderson, J. M., & Santangelo, G. M. (2016). Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level. PLOS Biology, 14, e1002541. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Radicchi, F., & Castellano, C. (2012). Testing the fairness of citation indicators for comparison across scientific domains: The case of fractional citation counts. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 121–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jeong, H., Néda, Z., & Barabási, A. L. (2003). Measuring preferential attachment in evolving networks. Europhysics Letters, 61, 567–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pudovkin, A. I., & Garfield, E. (2005/2004). Rank-normalized impact factor: A way to compare journal performance across subject categories. In Proceedings of the 67th annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science & Technology (pp. 507–515, vol. 41). Silver Spring: American Society for Information Science & Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295, 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Amin, M., & Mabe, M. A. (2003). Impact factors: Use and abuse. Medicina (B Aires), 63(4), 347–354. PMID: 14518149 revised in 2007 in Perspectives in Publishing No. 1, an Elsevier Occasional Newsletter.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 273–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dakik, H. A., Kaidbey, H., & Sabra, R. (2006). Research productivity of the medical faculty at the American University of Beirut. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 82, 462–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hendrix, D. (2008). An analysis of bibliometric indicators, National Institute of Health funding, and faculty size at Association of American Medical Colleges medical schools, 1997–2007. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 96(4), 324–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Molinari, J., & Molinari, A. (2008). A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions. Scientometrics, 75(1), 163–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chung, S. W., Clifton, J. S., Rowe, A. J., Finely, R. J., & Warnock, G. L. (2009). Strategic faculty recruitment increases research productivity within an academic university division. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 52(5), 401–406.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Meho, L. I., & Rogers, Y. (2008). Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1711–1726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Meho, L. I., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2009). Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: A tale of two citation databases—Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2499–2508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Mariam Sabah and Rana Bachir for their help in literature review and statistical analysis. Aida Farha and Lockman Meho for help with the ISI web of Science and Scopus databases.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

    Nadim Cortas

  2. Office of the Provost, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

    Boushra Rahal

Authors
  1. Nadim Cortas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Boushra Rahal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadim Cortas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nutrition, University of Petra, Amman, Jordan

    Adnan Badran (Chief Editor) (Chief Editor)

  2. Department of Biology, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

    Elias Baydoun

  3. James Hutton Institute, Dundee, UK

    John R. Hillman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cortas, N., Rahal, B. (2019). Role and Impact of Bibliometric Analysis of Research Productivity in Faculty Evaluation, Recruitment, Promotion, Reappointment, Benchmarking, and in Mission-Based Management (MBM): Experience of the Faculty of Medicine at the American University of Beirut (AUB), 1997–2007. In: Badran, A., Baydoun, E., Hillman, J.R. (eds) Major Challenges Facing Higher Education in the Arab World: Quality Assurance and Relevance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03774-1_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03774-1_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03773-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03774-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation