Response to “Reputation rankings for pediatric urology moderately”

Published:September 30, 2013DOI:
      We read with interest the recent letter regarding the Publication Ranking Score (PRS), and we appreciate the author's methodological points.
      As we noted in the paper, the point of the PRS paper was to neither advocate for nor against any particular ranking system—including our own. Rather, we hoped to draw attention to the fact that USNWR ranks hospitals based solely on clinical parameters and does not formally consider academic productivity. Given the academic structure of most pediatric urology programs, it is not surprising that there was a moderate degree of correlation between “reputation” and academic productivity. What is interesting, to us at least, is that this correlation was not stronger.
      There are clearly flaws to any possible ranking system, including the PRS. There are also benefits and potential uses, however; for example, the PRS may be helpful for individuals seeking fellowships in pediatric urology, or for administrators looking for ways to rate the research output of pediatric urology programs. We welcome the suggestions of the author and are pleased that our exercise has generated further discussion on this timely topic.

      Conflict of interest

      JSW currently serves on the pediatric urology working group for RTI International Best Hospitals Project which is a consultant to US News and World Report magazine regarding their ranking of pediatric urology hospitals. JSW also has served on an advisory panel for Glaxo Smith Kline. AK is a co-manager and co-owner of Urology Match, LLC. None of the remaining authors have any conflict of interest, financial or otherwise, to disclose.



      Linked Article

      • Reputation rankings for pediatric urology moderately reflect academic productivity
        Journal of Pediatric UrologyVol. 10Issue 1
        • Preview
          Lloyd et al. [1] presented the Publication Ranking Score (PRS) as an objective measure of hospital “process” quality that differs significantly from US News and World Report (USNWR) hospital rankings. This contrast is important, the authors suggested, because USNWR rankings may “lean heavily on institutional reputation.” The USNWR reputation survey, however, accounts for only 25% of the overall ranking. In this context, Joseph [2] suggested that “the PRS ranking would be better compared to the process domain (reputation) and not the overall final institutional ranking”.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF