PloS one · 2026
Research productivity and impact of rehabilitation science faculty across Canada: An observational study of publicly available and survey data.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kowalski Katie L, MacDermid Joy C, Trefiak Lochlyn, Albuquerque Sophie, Moore Lindsay, Pouliopoulou Dimitra V, Page Allyson, Meston Christine, Shaw Lynn, Rushton Alison
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study characterized research productivity and impact of rehabilitation science (Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Communication Sciences and Disorders) faculty across Canada.
METHODS: Mixed-method cross-sectional design, using publicly available data and online surveys. Faculty were identified from academic unit websites. Bibliometric indices were obtained using Google Scholar and grant funding from Tri-Council databases. Verification protocols checked data validity. Heads of academic units provided research environment data; faculty reported research impact. Descriptive statistics summarized research environment, bibliometric and grant funding indices. Kruskal-Wallis tests compared indices by appointment title. Regression analyses examined associations with h-index and funding; mixed-effects models explored academic unit clustering. Inductive content analysis identified self-described research impact.
RESULTS: Across 41 academic units, 685 full-time faculty were identified. Most units reported research supports, including administrative grant support (pre-award = 97%, post-award = 69%) and research facility access (97%). Median (IQR) h-index was: Full Professors: 32 (21-42), Associate Professors: 19 (14-25), Assistant Professors: 9 (6-16), Full Professors, Teaching: 4 (1-12), Associate Professors, Teaching: 3 (2-7), Assistant Professors, Teaching: 2 (0-5), Instructors: 1 (0-3). Tri-Council funding was concentrated among research-focused appointments and senior ranks. h-index was positively associated with publication count (β = 0.62, p < 0.001) and appointment title (p < 0.001) but not discipline (p = 0.66) or grant funding (p = 0.32). h-index variability attributable to academic units was 18.6% (p = 0.003), though research environment characteristics were not significant. Tri-Council funding was positively associated with publication count (β = 1.77, p < 0.001) and appointment title (p = 0.01) but not discipline (p = 0.47) or h-index (p = 0.32), with minimal between-unit variability (p = 0.39). Faculty described research impact beyond traditional scholarly metrics, including clinical practice, research and practice directions, education, capacity building, knowledge mobilization and engagement.
DISCUSSION: This study provides a contemporary national characterization of research productivity and impact among rehabilitation science faculty in Canada. Findings support using bibliometric and grant funding indices as a component of research performance evaluations, emphasizing the importance of contextual interpretation and broadly conceptualizing research impact.
METHODS: Mixed-method cross-sectional design, using publicly available data and online surveys. Faculty were identified from academic unit websites. Bibliometric indices were obtained using Google Scholar and grant funding from Tri-Council databases. Verification protocols checked data validity. Heads of academic units provided research environment data; faculty reported research impact. Descriptive statistics summarized research environment, bibliometric and grant funding indices. Kruskal-Wallis tests compared indices by appointment title. Regression analyses examined associations with h-index and funding; mixed-effects models explored academic unit clustering. Inductive content analysis identified self-described research impact.
RESULTS: Across 41 academic units, 685 full-time faculty were identified. Most units reported research supports, including administrative grant support (pre-award = 97%, post-award = 69%) and research facility access (97%). Median (IQR) h-index was: Full Professors: 32 (21-42), Associate Professors: 19 (14-25), Assistant Professors: 9 (6-16), Full Professors, Teaching: 4 (1-12), Associate Professors, Teaching: 3 (2-7), Assistant Professors, Teaching: 2 (0-5), Instructors: 1 (0-3). Tri-Council funding was concentrated among research-focused appointments and senior ranks. h-index was positively associated with publication count (β = 0.62, p < 0.001) and appointment title (p < 0.001) but not discipline (p = 0.66) or grant funding (p = 0.32). h-index variability attributable to academic units was 18.6% (p = 0.003), though research environment characteristics were not significant. Tri-Council funding was positively associated with publication count (β = 1.77, p < 0.001) and appointment title (p = 0.01) but not discipline (p = 0.47) or h-index (p = 0.32), with minimal between-unit variability (p = 0.39). Faculty described research impact beyond traditional scholarly metrics, including clinical practice, research and practice directions, education, capacity building, knowledge mobilization and engagement.
DISCUSSION: This study provides a contemporary national characterization of research productivity and impact among rehabilitation science faculty in Canada. Findings support using bibliometric and grant funding indices as a component of research performance evaluations, emphasizing the importance of contextual interpretation and broadly conceptualizing research impact.