The medical dissertation in Germany: A quantitative analysis of promotion regulations in medical faculties
Chirurg, ISSN: 0009-4722, Vol: 87, Issue: 9, Page: 775-784
2016
- 5Citations
- 7Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations5
- Citation Indexes5
- CrossRef1
- Captures7
- Readers7
Article Description
Background: The medical dissertation represents an independently processed scientific project. In the field of medicine this has for many years displayed the basis for controversial discussions. The aim of the study presented here was to evaluate the prerequisites of all current promotion regulations in German medical faculties in order to develop a comparability on the basis of a scoring system. Method: An independent analysis of all promotion regulations from German medical faculties for the year 2014 was carried out according to 12 primary outcome measures and a scoring system. Results: The average total score of promotion regulations at 37 German medical faculties was 57.2 points (SD ±9.5) out of a possible 100 scoring points. The highest scores with 72–85 points were achieved by 3 faculties and 5 achieved scores of only 42–45 points. The range of the different criteria tested was broad. While the written thesis, the review process, the examination requirements as well as the grading of the thesis were defined in all regulations, the introduction into good clinical practice, knowledge of methodology as well as a check for plagiarism only seem to play minor roles. Conclusion: The promotion regulations at German medical faculties show a great variation using the scoring system presented here for the first time. Standardized federal promotion regulations might help to establish a structured transparency as well as a national equality of opportunity.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84976370536&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00104-016-0235-9; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27356924; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00104-016-0235-9; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00104-016-0235-9; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00104-016-0235-9
Springer Nature
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know