Bibliometric data based on the Pharm.D. and Ph.D. degree in United States research-intensive colleges of pharmacy.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this work was to compare bibliometrics based on doctoral degrees within United States colleges of pharmacy to understand productivity differences. Secondary objectives were to provide quantitative data based on degree that could be utilized by individual faculty, administration and other key stakeholders in academic pharmacy. METHODS: Bibliometric indices were obtained from Scopus and Web of Science for faculty from research-intensive United States pharmacy schools. Scholarly metrics that included publication number, total citations, highest cited article and H-index were compared between degrees using multivariate regression adjusted for academic rank and years since first publication. A correction for multiple testing was applied. KEY FINDINGS: All collected scholarly metrics were higher for Ph.D.-only and Pharm.D./Ph.D. faculty when compared to Pharm.D.-only faculty. Ph.D.-only faculty significantly differed compared to Pharm.D./Ph.D. faculty for Web of Science average citations per document. CONCLUSIONS: Differences are apparent between the major doctoral degrees at research-intensive, federally funded colleges of pharmacy; however, these differences were primarily identified for Pharm.D.-only compared to the other doctoral degree types Future work should analyse the potential variables that explain the scholarly metrics differences between degrees and aim to analyse other areas of faculty impact beyond scholarly metrics.

A bibliometric analysis of the top 50 NIH-Funded colleges of pharmacy using two databases.

BACKGROUND: Scholarly productivity is an essential component of college of pharmacy activities and may depend on university rank, faculty type, faculty rank and department. Bibliometric measures provide a means to analyze scholarly productivity from colleges of pharmacy while accounting for these various factors. OBJECTIVES: To analyze bibliometric data from two databases based on Carnegie Research Classification and NIH-funding rank; provide descriptions of bibliometric data based on department type and faculty classification; and examine the distribution of publications in the top 50 NIH-funded Colleges of Pharmacy. METHODS: Faculty rosters were gathered for the top 50 NIH-funded colleges of pharmacy, and names were searched in Scopus and Web of Science to establish bibliometric records. Bibliometric indices were compared based on Carnegie Basic Classification and between the NIH funding ranks 1-25 versus 26-50 using WOS bibliometric data. Descriptive statistics were presented, and Pareto distributions were developed for total publications across all schools included. RESULTS: Schools in the top 25 for NIH funding and schools with a Carnegie R1 classification had significantly higher bibliometric measures compared to schools ranked 26-50 and schools classified as R2, respectively. For faculty members with a bibliometric record (i.e., at least one publication), 20% provide approximately 60% of the publications. Additionally, approximately 90% of publications are provided by 50% of faculty records. Faculty records from basic science departments, as compared to clinical pharmacy departments, represent the highest contributing groups in the Pareto analysis. CONCLUSION: Bibliometric indices are higher at colleges of pharmacy with greater NIH funding or an R1 Carnegie classification. A minority of faculty provides most publications in colleges of pharmacy, which is composed of members from basic science departments. The descriptive data provided here is useful for understanding readily available bibliometric data based on department type and faculty classification and rank.