J Dent Educ. 69(11): 1272-1277 2005
© 2005 American Dental Education Association
Milieu in Dental School and Practice |
Subsequent Dental Research Output of South African Division of the IADR Colgate Prize Entrants
Michelle I. Porter;
Alistair J. McAlpine;
Diana S. Mkhaliphi;
Elly S. Grossman, Ph.D.
Key words: research, prize, dentistry, awards, career, outcome
Submitted for publication 06/24/05;
accepted 08/02/05
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
This study recorded the research output of all participants for the IADR (South African Division; SA) Colgate Prize for 1967–2004 to establish whether, in their later careers, prize winners had a greater research output than runners-up. Using a list of all entrants, each individual was classified as winner or runner-up and by gender, race, and research field of presentation. The publication output for each individual was obtained from PubMed. A Poisson regression set at P<0.05 compared publication numbers between winners and runners-up. There were two groups of entrants: 101 participated once, and twenty-two participated twice or thrice. Winners had significantly more publications than runners-up, more so for the multiple entrants (winners 27.5±22.4; runners-up 16.5±25.5) than single entrants (winners 16.0±40.8; runners-up 12.0±27.7). The number of individuals participating in the Colgate Prize has declined, but representivity for race and gender is improving. This is the first study to establish that SA IADR Colgate Prize participants fulfil the long-term IADR ideal of research promotion among young investigators.
The South African Division of the International Association of Dental Research (SA IADR) was formed in 1966 to "provide a stimulus to dental research."1 At the first scientific meeting in 1967, the Colgate-Palmolive Prize (later renamed the Colgate Prize) for outstanding dental research was introduced to develop research among younger members.2 Participants were required to be thirty-five years or less in age with a recognized qualification, not necessarily of a dental nature. Judging was based on a standard conference abstract and ten-minute presentation with five minutes of question time in a session open to all members of the SA IADR. Experienced researchers were approached prior to the meeting to judge the candidates. In the early years, the prize took the form of an unframed commemorative certificate. Over the years the requirements have changed to conform to those of the Hatton Award of the parent IADR. In addition to the standard abstract, the candidate must now submit a written report of the work, in the form of a submission-ready manuscript that is circulated to the judges. The candidate is still required to present the topic orally in the Colgate Prize Session, the first session of the annual SA IADR meeting. Immediately thereafter, all candidates convene to a closed session at which a poster of each work is individually presented to the five-member judging panel and intensive questioning of the candidate occurs. Judging is based on scientific content and methodology, originality, data quality, presentation of study, and mastery of subject. The prize presently consists of an airplane ticket to the next General Session of the IADR, a travel allowance, and certificate from the sponsors. Entrants may enter more than once for the prize; however, once having won, they are no longer eligible for participation. No prize is awarded to any candidate if the standard of the presentations is deemed to be below par.
Sufficient time has elapsed since the first awarding of the prize in 1967 to establish whether its aims—"an abiding interest in research"—have been met. The purpose of this study was to record the publication output of all participants of the Colgate Prize for 1967–2004 for analysis to verify whether:
- 1) Colgate Prize entrants maintained an "abiding research interest"—by establishing the year of the most recent publication,
- 2) entrants could be regarded as "successful" researchers using the threshold of one publication,3
- 3) publication activity peaked at any point in the participants’ careers,
- 4) there was a difference in the research output of winners and runners-up,
- 5) research submitted for the prize was actually published, and
- 6) the data could yield predictors for productive dental researchers.
Additional details about the entrants were obtained to give further demographic information over the thirty-eight years of the competition:
- 7) number of candidates competing for the Colgate Prize,
- 8) profile of Colgate Prize entrants, and
- 9) research fields of the presentations.
Numerous scientific databases were consulted to find if any similar studies have been previously undertaken. The closest to our topic were investigations on productivity outcomes of grant and fellowship awardees.4 Based on review of the literature, we concluded that this is the first study of its kind. Research output was measured as the number of publications in dental journals attributed to the participant as listed in PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). This is a method that has been used elsewhere5 to obtain a measure of research activity.
|
Methods
|
|---|
Ethics clearance was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee (Medical), University of the Witwatersrand, clearance number 40430. A list of all the competition winners of the Colgate Prize was obtained from the executive committee of the SA IADR for 1967–2004. Program booklets for each SA IADR conference were consulted to obtain a list of participants for each year. All participants were identified according to gender, race, and research field of the presentation. All combinations of a participant’s surname and initials were used in the PubMed search, using the limitation to dental journals. No date limitation was set on any individual search to include research activity prior to participation. "OldMedline for pre 1966" (PubMed: Limits: Subsets) was used to search for prior research activity for those participants in the early years of the competition. Probable papers, where for instance the name was correct, but not the institution or address, were marked and a total publication list per individual printed out. The faculty of origin or knowledgeable SA IADR members were approached to verify uncertainties concerning publications, participants who had migrated, surnames of female participants who published under a different surname, and so on. Once corrected for each entrant, this list was further broken down to obtain the following:
- publications prior to and after Colgate Prize participation,
- year of most recent publication,
- output per five-year increments post participation, and
- whether the research presented for the Colgate Prize was ever published.
Data was set out in a spreadsheet and subjected to descriptive statistics. A Poisson regression was undertaken to compare the output record between winners and runners-up with the statistical significance set at P<0.05.
|
Results
|
|---|
There were 146 entrants drawn almost exclusively from the five dental schools in South Africa: 101 participated once, nineteen participated twice, and three participated thrice for a total of 123 individuals. All entrants who did not win were regarded as runners-up. The Colgate Prize was not awarded in 1982, 1996, and 1999. There were joint winners in 1968 and 1997.
Average number of entrants is 3.8 per year with participation fluctuating from a high of seven in 1969 to one entrant in the years 1982, 1996, 1999, and 2003. While there has never been a year without a candidate, there has been a steady decline in participation over the years. The first decade (1967–76) had forty-five participants, and there were twenty-six participants for 1995–2004. The last repeat entrant participated in 1994. Race and gender demographics have changed with time: 98 percent of entrants were white during the first ten years, and this has dropped to 64 percent for the last ten years. Similarly, male participation has dropped from 91 percent to 65 percent, respectively.
Figure 1
shows the research discipline breakdown for all topics presented for the Colgate Prize. For the first ten years, 1967–76, oral biology (23 percent) and oral pathology (21 percent) topics predominated, with bone healing (13 percent) following as a third interest. The years 1995–2004 have seen orthodontics outweighing the field with 37 percent of presentations, followed by oral biology (15 percent) and restorative and community dentistry each accounting for 11 percent of the research fields presented.
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. The great diversity of research fields presented for the Colgate Prize (POH=Public Oral Health; Perio=Periodontics; Pros=Prosthodontics; Oral Micro=Oral Microbiology; Oral Path=Oral Pathology)
|
|
Fifty-five of the 146 entrants (38 percent) have published the study they presented for the prize. Twenty-one participants (17 percent) never published anything at all, despite there being four winners among the "non-publishers." One-third (42/123) of the entrants had published prior to entering the competition, but prior publication did not guarantee winning the Colgate Prize nor a high total research output. Conversely, twelve of the twenty-one highest publishers did not win, and nine had no prior publication record. Fifty-seven of the 123 individuals (46 percent) are still currently publishing, having produced a paper between 2000 and 2004. Publication output of entrants has peaked at two time intervals—either within the immediate five years following participation for the Colgate Prize or else approximately fifteen to twenty years after competing.
The 123 entrants published a total of 1,786 papers over the thirty-eight years of the competition. Validity of statistical testing is compromised by double counting of the publication output of multiple entrants. The entrants were therefore divided into two data subsets: single entrants (n=101) and multiple entrants who were recorded when they competed for the last time and either won or were runners-up (n=22). Table 1 shows the subsets, number of publications, and results of the Poisson regression used to compare the publication output of winners and runners. Within both subsets there was a significant difference in output between winners and runners-up, more so for the multiple entrant group (rate ratio=1.67) than the single entrants (rate ratio=1.40). Multiple entrants also had a higher published output than the single entrants (20.5 compared to 13.2 papers/individual over the thirty-eight years of the competition).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1. Comparison of numbers of entrants, published papers, papers per individual entrants with standard deviation, and results of the Poisson regression between winners and runners-up. Multiple entrants and winners have the highest publication output.
|
|
Publication output within each group was largely due to the efforts of a small number of individuals. For the single entrant group, 6 percent of individuals produced 50 percent of the output (two winners and four runners-up). Similarly, two winners and one runner-up (14 percent of the multiple entrant group) produced 50 percent of the papers for that group. The multiple entrant winners were the only group to have a minimum publication output greater than zero.
Possible predictors for research productivity were investigated using two flags: those entrants who are currently (2000–04) publishing, and those who have twenty-four or more published papers. This latter threshold was selected as it is double the average output for single entrant runners-up. Of the twenty-one individuals who have published twenty-four or more papers, eleven published their entrant research, twelve had prior publication experience, and nineteen are currently publishing (Table 2a). Entrants who are still currently publishing (Table 2b) were almost equally split as to having published the entrant research (twenty-six) or having prior research experience (twenty-three). No trend is evident within any winner or runner-up group to indicate that publication of presentation, prior publication, or current publication can predict future research productivity. As to be expected, the average output per individual in both data subsets (Table 2a and b) was higher than for the single and multiple entrant groups as a whole (Table 1
).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 2. Breakdown of Colgate Prize entrants who have published twenty-four or more papers and those who are currently (2000–04) publishing
|
|
|
Discussion
|
|---|
"The future of our association rests with each new generation of scientists," Sally Marshall wrote in 1999. "I urge you to make an effort to find at least one future oral health scientist who can replace you and continue with the traditions of the IADR."6 Our data shows that the SA IADR fulfils Marshall’s appeal in that 83 percent of Colgate Prize entrants have been successful researchers in that they have published at least one paper. The designation of a "successful" researcher is multifaceted, with different institutions of thought using varying criteria. De Solla Price3 observes that the mathematical odds against successful publication are greatest with the first submitted paper. Once this is published, the odds of further successful publication increases as the researcher gains experience with each subsequent publication. This threshold of one published paper to indicate research success was applied in our study.
Productivity in research was measured by publication output. The data shows that winners of the Colgate Prize have produced more published papers than runners-up and by inference are more productive researchers. Multiple entrants are more productive than one-time entrants: their repeated attempts to compete for the Colgate Prize indicate enthusiasm and perseverance, key traits required for successful research. Neither prior publication experience nor the publishing of the entrant research could be linked to research productivity. It seems that Colgate Prize entrants who have an "abiding interest in research" are individually motivated. In considering the results, it may be argued that examining research outputs of entrants without regard to time is unfair as the more recent participants have had less time to produce publications than older participants. However, we argue that each entrant in any given year has an equal probability of a successful and productive research career, whether a winner or runner-up.
The two peaks of high research productivity among entrants are logical. The short-term, five-year peak indicates immediate research enthusiasm following the entrant’s first research exposure. Thereafter, research appears to compete with other demands on the entrant’s time with a decline in output. The longer-term peak of between fifteen and twenty years reflects the output of the dedicated, career researcher who requires time to establish a niche and gather equipment, funding, and collaborators in order to reach peak productivity.
Despite the fact that a submission-ready manuscript is one of the conditions of entry to the Colgate Prize, only 38 percent of entrants published that work. Obviously, there is a time lag between successful completion of a project and publication, and recent participants have had less time to publish than the older participants. Many of the high-output current researchers never published their Colgate Prize study, which is puzzling and deserves further investigation. After all, publication of research findings has always been recommended as a means of communicating scientific results. It may be that encouraging mentorship was not present at the outset of the research career, and this was only provided via ongoing SA IADR contact.
Using the number of listed PubMed publications attributed to the participant as a measure of research activity is a method that has been used elsewhere.5 A further advantage of utilizing this database is the incorporation of a certain standard of publication quality. Once limitations are set on the search, there is a danger of underreporting research activity, a problem that has been encountered in a similar surgery-based study.5 However, we do not feel that underreporting will change the essential findings of the study. One drawback of this investigation is the lack of comparative controls for published output. Valid controls require a matched pairing of entrants with SA IADR non-Colgate Prize-presenting individuals of the same age, gender, race, university, and research field within each year: this has been impossible to obtain. Our closest comparison has been with the research output of qualified master’s students who appear on the Dental Research Institute database,7 which indicates a group average of 5.6 papers (unpublished results). This publication output is well below that of the Colgate Prize entrants.
The changing race and gender profiles of entrants reflect the shifting student demographics in the classroom over the past thirty-eight years. Still, the steady decline in numbers of students entering for the Colgate Prize and the fact that there has been no repeat entrant for the past eleven years are worrying indications that research interest may be declining within the ranks of newly qualified South African dentists.7
The wide diversity of research topics presented shows that all branches of investigation are welcomed in the Colgate Prize. The changing fields of research, from general oral biology in the earlier years to recent specialist fields, probably reflects the dynamic expansion that oral health science has undergone over the study period.
|
Conclusion
|
|---|
Since its establishment in 1920, the IADR has imprinted dental research globally through its zest, passion, and support. Our thirty-eight-year retrospective analysis shows that the South African IADR Colgate Prize has upheld this ideal and has stimulated subsequent research activity in dentistry among entrants, but more so in winners than runners-up. This raises the intriguing question as to whether a research prize has stimulated similar research interests in other dental award participants and whether comparable output trends occur. Such comparisons would provide valuable insights into the cascade of events that culminate in a lifelong dental research interest.
|
Acknowledgments
|
|---|
We thank Professor A. Volchansky, honorary researcher of the Dental Research Institute and founding member of the SA IADR, for a copy of the minutes of the inaugural meeting of the SA Division and the use of his program booklets of 1967-78; Professor P. Cleaton-Jones, director of the Dental Research Institute, for information on Colgate Prize participants and helpful suggestions in the writing of this paper; and Professors Jonathan Levin and Piet Becker of the Division of Biostatistics, Medical Research Council, Pretoria for assistance with the statistical analysis of the data.
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
Ms. Porter, Mr. McAlpine, and Ms. Mkhaliphi are fifth-year dental students at the School of Oral Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; Dr. Grossman is a Senior Specialist Scientist at the Dental Research Institute attached to the school. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Elly S. Grossman, Dental Research Institute, Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa; 27-11-717-2229 phone; 27-11-717-2121 fax; grossmane{at}dentistry.wits.ac.za.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- Minutes of the inaugural meeting of the South African division of the International Association for Dental Research. Main Lecture Theatre, Oral and Dental Hospital, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, September 22, 1966.
- Shear M. The Southern African division: history of the divisions. In: Orland FJ, ed. The fifty-year history of the IADR. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1973:226–8.
- de Solla Price D. The development and structure of the biomedical literature. In: Warren KS, ed. Coping with the biomedical literature: a primer for the scientist and the clinician. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1981:17–30.
- Rose RC, Prozialeck WC. Productivity outcomes for recent grants and fellowships awarded by the American Osteopathic Association Bureau Research. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2003;103:435–40.[Abstract]
- Jackson HH, Jackson JD, Mulvihill SJ, Firpo MA, Glasgow RE. Trends in research support and productivity in the changing environment of academic surgery. J Surg Res 2004;116:197–201.[Medline]
- Marshall SJ. The IADR: mentor for dental research. J Dent Res 1999;78:1384–5.[Free Full Text]
- Grossman ES, Cleaton-Jones PE. Research transformation and productivity. S Afr J Sci 2005;101:104.
Top
Abstract
Methods
