# Assessment of H-index and research impact amongst academic medical oncologists in Canada

## TL;DR

This study examines the academic productivity of Canadian medical oncologists using the h-index and finds that higher academic rank and research funding are key factors.

## Contribution

The study provides the first assessment of h-index and research impact among Canadian academic medical oncologists.

## Key findings

- The median h-index for Canadian medical oncologists was 14.0.
- Higher academic rank and CIHR funding were significantly associated with higher h-index scores.
- Variables like sex, region, and years of practice did not significantly predict academic productivity.

## Abstract

The h-index is widely used to measure academic productivity in medicine, yet data on research output among academic medical oncologists in Canada remain limited. This study aimed to characterize the academic profiles of Canadian medical oncologists and identify factors associated with higher h-index scores.

A cross-sectional analysis of medical oncologists affiliated with Canadian universities was conducted using publicly available faculty listings, Scopus Author IDs, and professional certification records. Key demographic and academic variables—including sex, years since certification, academic rank, graduate degrees, region of practice, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) funding—were collected. Univariate and multivariate log-linear regression models were used to assess the relationship between these factors and the h-index.

A total of 391 medical oncologists were identified across 15 Canadian institutions. The median national h-index was 14.0, with regional and sex-based differences noted in descriptive statistics. However, in adjusted analyses, only higher academic rank and receipt of CIHR funding were significantly associated with increased h-index values. Other variables, including sex, graduate degrees, region, and years of practice, were not significant predictors of academic productivity.

These findings highlight the role of institutional advancement and research funding in supporting academic output and may guide future research, policy development, and evaluation practices in academic oncology.