Majority of Most-Cited Articles in Top Plastic Surgery Journals Do Not Receive Funding

Abstract

Abstract Background Plastic surgery faculty, residencies, and institutions are frequently judged on the quantity and quality of their research output. Some of the most impressive individuals in the specialty receive financial support in the form of grants and payments to help with research ideas. Objectives The authors sought to discern if funding directly correlates to greater impact in the top plastic surgery journals as measured by citations. Methods Using the Web of Science database, the authors identified the 50 most-cited articles in each of the top plastic surgery journals from January 1975 to August 2020. The articles were scanned for funding sources and categorized as industry, federal, foundational, and institutional, while stratifying by decade. Results Between 16 journals, 13.3% of the most-cited articles received funding, 2.6% of which came from industry, 5.4% from government, 4.4% from foundations, and 0.86% from institutions. The percentage of most-cited articles and the proportion that received funding were both correlated with decade (P = 0.0017 and P = 0.043, respectively). However, only the percentage of articles was found to significantly increase over time (P = 0.0068). Conclusions Although funding leads to meaningful publications, this study showed that financial support is not required to have an influence in plastic surgery research.