Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:30:46.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are UK otorhinolaryngologists maintaining their research output?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2013

K Kulkarni ,
M Kulkarni ,
J Ramsden  and
P Silva
K Kulkarni*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
M Kulkarni
Affiliation:
Kingston General Hospital, UK
J Ramsden
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
P Silva
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Kunal Kulkarni, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK Fax: +44 (0)1865 223 1091 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

In the general surgical and anaesthetic literature, there has been a decline in research output originating from the UK. This study analysed the 10 globally leading and 2 UK leading otorhinolaryngology journals to determine whether this trend was also reflected within otorhinolaryngology.

Methods:

Citable research output was analysed from 4 individual years, over a 10-year period (2000–2010), to determine absolute output, geographical mix and article type.

Results:

The proportion of research output from the UK and Ireland grew 22.8 per cent among the leading global otorhinolaryngology journals, but fell 28.6 per cent among the leading two UK otorhinolaryngology journals. The converse trend was true for the USA and Canada. Output from European and the rest of the world grew among both sets of journals, while Japanese output fell. ‘Research’ articles remained the most prevalent type.

Conclusion:

These results are encouraging as they refute the fall in UK research output observed by other authors. In the face of growing challenges, it is important to maintain published output so that the fate that has befallen other specialties is not mirrored within UK otorhinolaryngology.

Keywords

ResearchPublicationsJournal Impact Factor
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 127 , Issue 6 , June 2013 , pp. 556 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented at the 2012 Spring Meeting of the Otorhinolaryngological Research Society, 16 March 2012, London, UK

References

1Bell, J. Resuscitating clinical research in the United Kingdom. BMJ 2003;327:1041–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Phillips, AW, Macgregor, TP, Mihai, R. Is less clinical research being published by surgeons in the United Kingdom? Surgeon 2011;9:237–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Feneck, RO, Natarajan, N, Sebastian, R, Naughton, C. Decline in research publications from the United Kingdom in anaesthesia journals from 1997 to 2006. Anaesthesia 2008;63:270–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Centre for Workforce Intelligence. Shape of the Medical Workforce: Informing Medical Specialty Training Numbers. Recommendations for Medical Specialty Training Numbers. London: Centre for Workforce Intelligence, 2011Google Scholar
5Thompson Reuters Web of Knowledge 2010 Journal Citation Reports. In: http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/analytical/jcr/ [13 February 2012]Google Scholar
6Hopper, AD, Atkinson, RJ, Razak, A, Rahim, A, Perera, A, Jones, G et al. Is medical research within the UK in decline? A study of publication rates from the British Society of Gastroenterology from 1994 to 2002. Clin Med 2009;9:22–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base – 2011. London: Elsevier and Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, 2011Google Scholar
8McCulloch, P. How to improve surgical research. BMJ 2011;343:d4121CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Seglen, PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997;314:498–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Brown, T. Journal quality metrics: options to consider other than impact factors. Am J Occup Ther 2011;65:346–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11UK Clinical Research Collaboration and Modernising Medical Careers. Medically- and dentally-Qualified Academic Staff: Recommendations for Training the Researchers and Educators of the Future. Report of the Academic Careers Sub-Committee of Modernising Medical Careers and the UK Clinical Research Collaboration. London: UK Clinical Research Collaboration and Modernising Medical Careers, 2005Google Scholar
12Royal College of Surgeons. From Theory to Theatre: Overcoming Barriers to Innovation in Surgery. London: Royal College of Surgeons, 2011Google Scholar