Response to "Reputation rankings for pediatric urology moderately".
Response to "Reputation rankings for pediatric urology moderately".
复制标题
对“小儿泌尿科声誉排名中等”的回应。
DOI：
10.1016/j.jpurol.2013.08.011
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Routh,JC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lloyd,JC;Madden-Fuentes,RJ;Nelson,CP;Kokorowski,PJ;Wiener,JS;Ross,SS;Kutikov,A;Routh,JC
正如我们在论文中所指出的，PRS论文的重点是既不支持也不反对任何特定的排名系统，包括我们自己的排名系统。相反，我们希望提请注意这样一个事实，即USNWR仅根据临床参数对医院进行排名，而不正式考虑学术生产力。鉴于大多数小儿泌尿外科专业的学术结构，“声誉”和学术生产力之间存在中度相关性并不奇怪。有趣的是，至少对我们来说，这种相关性并不强。任何可能的排名系统，包括PRS，都存在明显的缺陷。然而，也有好处和潜在的用途;例如，PRS可能有助于寻求儿科泌尿学奖学金的个人，或寻求评估儿科泌尿学项目研究成果的方法的管理人员。我们欢迎作者的建议，并高兴地看到，我们的工作引起了对这一及时议题的进一步讨论。
As we noted in the paper, the point of the PRS paper was to neither advocate for nor against any particular ranking system—including our own. Rather, we hoped to draw attention to the fact that USNWR ranks hospitals based solely on clinical parameters and does not formally consider academic productivity. Given the academic structure of most pediatric urology programs, it is not surprising that there was a moderate degree of correlation between “reputation” and academic productivity. What is interesting, to us at least, is that this correlation was not stronger.There are clearly flaws to any possible ranking system, including the PRS. There are also benefits and potential uses, however; for example, the PRS may be helpful for individuals seeking fellowships in pediatric urology, or for administrators looking for ways to rate the research output of pediatric urology programs. We welcome the suggestions of the author and are pleased that our exercise has generated further discussion on this timely topic.