Using publication statistics for evaluation in academic psychiatry

Abstract

Objective: The validity of using publication statistics to evaluate university faculty is not established. This study aimed to determine if publication statistics vary among psychiatric faculty members of different academic rank and if there are biases among disciplines. Method: Using the 10 most recent publications written by psychiatric faculty members at 2 schools of medicine, we compared the time to publish 10 papers, the 5-year impact, the citation rate, and the citation ratio according to academic rank and school. Leaders in neuroscience were compared with leaders in clinical subspecialties. Results: All statistics were associated with academic rank (P ≤ 0.001) and there were significant differences between the 2 schools. There were more basic scientists than clinical subspecialists in the 80th percentile for 5-year impact (P = 0.04), but the latter disciplines performed equally in citation ratio. Conclusions: Publication statistics differ among academic ranks. Citation ratio minimizes the effect of biases among disciplines. Publication statistics may provide useful information for evaluating psychiatric faculty.