Publication details
National-, institutional-, and individual-level determinants of psychiatric research excellence: Analysis of Stanford-Elsevier lists of the top 2 % scholars worldwide (2017-2023)
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2026 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Asian Journal of Psychiatry |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| web | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876201825004691?via%3Dihub |
| Doi | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2025.104826 |
| Keywords | Academia; Bibliometrics; Gender Equity; Global Health; Macroeconomic FactorsMental Disorders; Mental Health Services; Psychiatry; Research Personnel |
| Description | Background Research excellence is increasingly used as a benchmark for academic evaluation in medical sciences, including psychiatry. However, bibliometric analyses often prioritize productivity over quality. This study examined national, institutional, and individual determinants of psychiatric research excellence using a multi-level ecological framework. Methods We analyzed the Stanford–Elsevier Lists of the top 2?% scholars (2017–2023), incorporating 51 independent variables. These included: (a) national determinants grouped into five domains (mental healthcare, gender equity, socioeconomic development, budgetary policies, and disease burden), (b) institutional factors derived from global and discipline-specific rankings, and (c) individual factors of gender and academic age. The primary outcome was the number of excellent psychiatric scholars (EPS), with secondary indicators including citation counts, modified H-index, composite score, and self-citation share. Results Psychiatric research excellence was concentrated in high-income, English-speaking countries, with significant institutional elitism. A small number of institutions hosted a disproportionate share of EPS. Gender disparities persisted, with female representation negatively associated with national gender gaps in employment and education, but positively linked to government spending on education. Academic age positively correlated with citation-based performance metrics. Multivariable models confirmed the explanatory roles of gender, academic age, official language, gender equity, and human development. Conclusion Psychiatric research excellence reflects systemic advantages related to income, language, institutional prestige, and gender equity. Equitable funding, support for emerging research environments, and expanded international collaboration are essential to fostering broader participation in high-impact psychiatric research. |
| Related projects: |