Abstract
Objective
To review the academic benchmark of highly influential ophthalmologists listed in the ophthalmology ‘2020 Power List’.
Methods
In this cross-sectional study, the academic profiles, achievements, and bibliometric profiles of all ophthalmologists listed in the ‘Power List of 2020’, regarded as the most influential figures in ophthalmology today, were analysed.
Results
Ninety-five ophthalmologists were studied, after excluding 10 non-ophthalmologist figures that are also listed. Their mean age is 63 ± 11.7 years, with a strong male predominance (84.2%, n = 80 males, P < 0.001). All have a medical doctorate degree, and 31% (n = 29) have a Philosophy Doctor (PhD) degree. Fifty-three percent (n = 51) are graduates of medical schools in the United States (US). However, non-US ophthalmologists have a higher percentage of PhD degrees (41%, 18/44) vs. US ophthalmologists (22%, 11/51, P = 0.069), and also a longer duration of post-residency training (5.8 ± 3.1 vs. 1.8 ± 0.9 years, P < 0.001). The most common subspecialty was cataract and anterior segment surgery (42%, n = 40). The mean and standard deviation of the total number of papers published by ophthalmologists were 307.4 ± 226.3, with a mean citation record of 11,835.7 ± 13,330.5, and a mean h-index of 46.9 ± 27.9.
Conclusions
The ophthalmologists listed on the ‘Power List of 2020’ are leaders with high accomplishments and an established interest in research evidenced by a high record of publications and an exceptional bibliometric profile. The list contains more US figures with a gender disparity, demonstrating a greater difficulty for international ophthalmologists, especially women, in achieving this high level of recognition.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
Data availability
The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Gershoni A, Tiosano A, Gabbay O, Schlesinger M, Elbaz U, Barayev E, et al. Academic background, professional experience, and research achievements of United States academic ophthalmology leadership. Ir J Med Sci. 2021;1971:1–7.
Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:16569–7.
Sidiropoulos A, Katsaros D, Manolopoulos Y. Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics. 2007;72:253–28.
Jin B, Liang L, Rousseau R, Egghe L. The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chin Sci Bull. 2007;52:855–63.
Schreiber M. To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. N. J Phys. 2008;10:040201.
Gast KM, Kuzon WM Jr, Adelman EE, Waljee JF. Influence of training institution on academic affiliation and productivity among plastic surgery faculty in the United States. Plast Reconstructive Surg. 2014;134:570–8.
Post AF, Li AY, Dai JB, Maniya AY, Haider S, Sobotka S, et al. Academic productivity of spine surgeons at United States neurological surgery and orthopedic surgery training programs. World Neurosurg. 2019;121:e511–e518.
Coe IR, Wiley R, Bekker LG. Organisational best practices towards gender equality in science and medicine. Lancet. 2019;393:587–93.
Riska E. Women in the medical profession: international trends. In: The Palgrave handbook of gender and healthcare. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2010. p. 389–404.
Matsui T, Sato M, Kato Y, Nishigori H. Professional identity formation of female doctors in Japan–gap between the married and unmarried. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:1–9.
Jones TM, Fanson KV, Lanfear R, Symonds MRE, Higgie M. Gender differences in conference presentations: A consequence of self-selection? Peerj. 2014;2:e627.
Ahmadi M, Khurshid K, Sanelli PC, Jalal S, Chahal T, Norbash A, et al. Influences for gender disparity in academic neuroradiology. Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39:18–23.
Van den Brink M. Scouting for talent: Appointment practices of women professors in academic medicine. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72:2033–40.
Carr PL, Gunn CM, Kaplan SA, Raj A, Freund KM. Inadequate progress for women in academic medicine: findings from the National Faculty Study. J women’s health. 2015;24:190–9.
ACCEPTED: U.S. News Releases 2021 Ranking of Best Medical Schools. 2020. https://blog.accepted.com/u-s-news-releases-2021-ranking-of-best-medical-schools/.
Walker KA. Females are first authors, sole authors, and reviewers of entomology publications significantly less often than males. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 2019;113:193–201.
Hesli VL, Lee JM. Faculty research productivity: Why do some of our colleagues publish more than others? Political Sci Politics. 2011;44:393–408.
Mimouni M, Krauthammer M, Abualhasan H, Badarni H, Imtanis K, Allon G, et al. Publication outcome of abstracts submitted to the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:57.
Shemesh R, Mezer E, Wygnanski-Jaffe T. Publication modifiers of abstracts submitted to the American Association of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Annual Meeting. Eye. 2021;35:694–5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RS collected, cleaned, analysed the data and drafted and revised the paper, AT wrote the statistical analysis plan, EB collected and analysed the data, EZ collected and analysed the data, AG-designed data collection tools and revised the paper. GD initiated the project, designed data collection tools, analysed the data and drafted and revised the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shemesh, R., Tiosano, A., Barayev, E. et al. Academic benchmark of highly influential ophthalmologists listed in the ophthalmology power list. Eye 37, 1503–1508 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02170-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02170-8
