Advancing bibliometric assessment of research productivity: an analysis of US Departments of Family Medicine Winston Liaw MD, MPH; 1,2,9 Andrew W. Bazemore MD, MPH; 3,4 Bernard Ewigman MD, MSPH; 5 Tanvir Chowdhury Turin MBBS, PhD; 6 Daniel McCorry MD; 7 Stephen Petterson PhD; 1 Susan M. Dovey PhD, MPH 8 1 Robert Graham Center, Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, Washington DC, USA 2 Department of Health Systems and Population Health Sciences, University of Houston, College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77204, USA 3 American Board of Family Medicine in Lexington, Kentucky, USA 4 Center for Professionalism and Value in Health Care in Washington, DC, USA 5 Department of Family Medicine, University of Chicago & NorthShore University Health System, Chicago, IL 60637, USA 6 Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary AB T2N 4N1, Canada 7 Reid Hospital and Health Care Services, Richmond, Indiana, USA 8 Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, Wellington, New Zealand 9 Corresponding author. Email: winstonrliaw@gmail.com J PRIM HEALTH CARE 2020;12(2):149–158. doi:10.1071/HC19098 Received 2 November 2019 Accepted 24 February 2020 Published 7 May 2020 ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: Measurement of family medicine research productivity has lacked the replicable methodology needed to document progress. AIM: In this study, we compared three methods: (1) faculty-to-publications; (2) publications-to- faculty; and (3) department-reported publications. METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, publications in peer-reviewed, indexed journals for faculty in 13 US family medicine departments in 2015 were assessed. In the faculty-to-publications method, department websites to identify faculty and Web of Science to identify publications were used. For the publications-to-faculty method, PubMed’s author affiliation field were used to identify publications, which were linked to faculty members. In the department-reported method, chairs provided lists of faculty and their publications. For each method, descriptive statistics to compare faculty and publication counts were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 750 faculty members with 1052 unique publications, using all three methods combined as the reference standard, were identified. The department-reported method revealed 878 publications (84%), compared to 616 (59%) for the faculty-to-publications method and 412 (39%) for the publication-to-faculty method. Across all departments, 32% of faculty had any publications, and the mean number of publications per faculty was 1.4 (mean of 4.4 per faculty among those who had published). Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors and Chairs accounted for 92% of all publications. DISCUSSION: Online searches capture a fraction of publications, but also capture publications missed through self-report. The ideal methodology includes all three. Tracking publications is important for quantifying the return on our discipline’s research investment. KEYWORDS: Professional development; primary health care; health research; bibliometric analysis ‘When you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcelyyadvanced to the stage of science’ ySir William Thomson 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER ORIGINAL RESEARCH: EDUCATION 149 CSIRO Publishing Journal compilation Ó Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners 2020 This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License