The relative citation ratio (RCR) as a novel bibliometric among 2511 academic orthopedic surgeons

Objectively measuring research output is important for grant awards, promotion, and tenure, or self-evaluation of productivity. However, certain shortcomings limit common bibliometric indicators. The time- and field-independent relative citation ratio (RCR) was proposed to overcome these limitations. The objective of this study was to determine whether the RCR correlates with academic rank, gender, and PhD degree status among US academic orthopedic surgeons. Full-time faculty surgeons at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopedic surgery residency programs were included in this study. Mean (mRCR) and weighted (wRCR) RCR scores were collected from the National Institutes of Health iCite database to quantify scholarly "impact" and "production," respectively, and were compared by academic rank, gender, and PhD status. All information was collected from publicly available faculty listings on departmental websites. A total of 2511 orthopedic surgeons from 132 residency programs were assessed. Overall, the median (interquartile range) mRCR score was 1.56 (1.05-2.12) and the median wRCR score was 27.6 (6.97-88.44). Both metrics increased with each successive academic rank, except for department chairs. There was no difference in mRCR between male and female surgeons. Among assistant professors, males had higher wRCR scores. Both metrics were higher among surgeons with a PhD degree. The RCR offers key advantages over other indices, which are reflected in differences in score distributions compared with the widely used h-index. Nevertheless, implementation of the RCR should be preceded with careful consideration of its own limitations.