The present study comprehensively evaluated the publication outcomes of urology residency theses in Türkiye between 2015 and 2020, demonstrating that 58.4% of theses were published as scientific articles, with 36.3% appearing in SCIE-indexed journals. The most frequent subject areas were uro-oncology, endourology, and andrology, with an average publication delay of three years. These findings indicate a notably higher publication performance, suggesting that the field of urology in Türkiye maintains a strong research and publication culture among residency programs. Taken together, these findings not only demonstrate the relative strength of Turkish urology but also provide a benchmark for evaluating the academic efficiency of other medical disciplines in the country.
Söğütdelen and Küçükyangöz (1) reported that 22.7% of Turkish urology theses (2014–2018) were subsequently published as journal articles and that 18.4% were published in PubMed-indexed journals; importantly, SCIE/ESCI stratification was not assessed in their analysis. In contrast, in our cohort (2015–2020; n = 399), the overall publication rate was 58.4%, and 36.3% of theses were published in SCIE-indexed journals. The lower rates in the earlier report may be partially attributable to its 2-year publication window, which is vulnerable to publication time-lag, and to publication ascertainment limited to PubMed and Google Scholar without Scopus, potentially leading to under-detection of thesis-derived articles published outside PubMed coverage.
When compared with other national data, the publication rate of urology theses exceeds the rates reported in general surgery (20.5%) (2), forensic medicine (32.6%) (3), otorhinolaryngology (35.6%) (4), orthopedics (39.5%) (5), and psychiatry (37.7%) (6). The proportion of SCIE-indexed publications in urology (36.3%) also surpasses that of infectious diseases (11.4%) (7), physical medicine and rehabilitation (24.5%) (8) and emergency medicine (18%) (9). More detailed comparative data across medical specialties are presented in Table 5.
This outcome may be attributed to the robust research infrastructure in urology departments, the presence of active academic mentors, and the increasing international collaborations in this specialty. Conversely, relatively lower publication rates observed in other specialties may reflect limited methodological training, high clinical workload, or lack of incentives for publication, as reported by Ferhatoğlu et al. and Çağlayan et al. (2,3). Moreover, international studies echo similar challenges: in France, only 35.3% of radiology theses were published (17), while in India and Peru, the rates were 30% and 17.6%, respectively (18,19). These cross-country similarities highlight the global nature of publication barriers following residency training. This observation underscores that the barriers to publication are not purely structural but also cultural, encompassing motivation, mentorship accessibility, and institutional emphasis on academic productivity.
Factors that influence successful publication have been repeatedly emphasized in the literature. Prospective or experimental study designs and inclusion of multivariate analysis were found to increase the likelihood of publication (3,20). The academic rank and publication productivity (H-index) of thesis advisors were also correlated with the success of publication in the endocrinology and psychiatry fields (6,21,22). Our findings support these observations, as a considerable proportion of urology theses involved prospective data collection, multicenter collaboration, and laboratory-based experimental designs, all of which are associated with higher-level evidence studies. Furthermore, the average publication delay of three years aligns with data from anesthesiology (3.1 years) (10) and forensic medicine (2.95 years) (3), suggesting similar dissemination dynamics across Turkish residency programs.
As presented in Table 3, the journals most frequently selected for thesis-derived publications in this study were International Journal of Clinical Practice and International Urology and Nephrology among SCIE-indexed sources, Urology Research and Practice (formerly Turkish Journal of Urology) within ESCI, and The New Journal of Urology under TR-Index indexing.
The observed emphasis on uro-oncology among urology theses parallels trends in high-impact subspecialties worldwide. Oncology-related dissertations tend to have greater visibility, higher citation impact, and a higher probability of acceptance in SCIE-indexed journals, as previously reported in orthopedics and general surgery (2,5). Nevertheless, the dominance of a single subspecialty may indicate a potential imbalance in research diversity, emphasizing the need to promote underrepresented fields such as pediatric urology or functional urology.
Temporal patterns of publication output were also evaluated (Figure 2). As shown in Figure 2, a steady upward trend was observed in the number of thesis-derived publications and SCIE-indexed articles from 2015 onward, reaching its peak during the 2020–2021 period. After this peak, both the total number of publications and SCIE-indexed outputs exhibited a noticeable decline. However, it should be acknowledged that, since the present analysis was conducted in 2025 and encompasses urology residency theses completed between 2015 and 2020, a substantial proportion of theses from the early 2020s may still be undergoing the publication process. Thus, the apparent post-2021 decline likely represents a time-lag effect rather than a genuine reduction in academic productivity. This rise-and-fall pattern may instead reflect a partial snapshot within a broader continuum of scholarly productivity, emphasizing the importance of longitudinal evaluations to more accurately capture the evolving trends in the dissemination of urology theses in Türkiye. Notably, this temporal pattern aligns with the global disruptions in academic output during the COVID-19 pandemic years, which may have temporarily influenced research dissemination cycles.
Beyond publication frequency, the citation performance of SCIE-indexed theses provides an additional dimension for evaluating academic influence. When limited to SCIE-indexed publications, citation analysis provides a more accurate reflection of the scientific visibility and long-term impact of residency research. Across various medical specialties in Türkiye, the mean number of citations for SCIE-indexed thesis-derived articles has been reported to range between 8 and 15. In general surgery, the average citation count for SCIE-indexed publications was 8.6 ± 12.1, while orthopedic and thoracic surgery theses achieved mean citation values of 12.4 ± 18.7 and 9.8 ± 11.3, respectively (2,5,15). In comparison, the present study demonstrated that urology theses published in SCIE-indexed journals had an average citation rate of 12.6 ± 16.5, indicating that urology maintains one of the highest citation impacts among medical specialties in Türkiye. This suggests that the scientific influence of urology theses, as reflected by citation performance, is comparable to or exceeds that observed in other surgically oriented specialties. These findings highlight that, beyond publication counts, the quality and scholarly influence of SCIE-indexed outputs serve as critical indicators of academic productivity. Continued monitoring of citation metrics within SCIE journals will be essential for assessing the evolving global impact of Turkish urology research.
Globally, structural determinants such as mentorship quality, institutional incentives, and research funding availability have been shown to strongly affect the transition from thesis to publication (17–19). Countries with institutionalized mentorship and protected research time, like Sweden and Finland, report higher publication rates (33–38%) (23,24). Building upon the existing academic strength of Turkish urology, establishing sustainable academic ecosystems within training centers remains essential for maintaining and further improving scholarly productivity. In addition to methodological rigor, factors such as English-language proficiency, access to statistical support, and the presence of research training during residency have been shown to play crucial roles in transforming theses into publishable manuscripts (25).
This study’s findings must be interpreted in light of certain limitations. Although the bibliometric coverage was comprehensive, publication identification relied on author name and title matching, which may lead to underestimation. Additionally, cross-specialty comparisons should be made cautiously, as methodological rigor and indexing practices differ among fields. Nevertheless, by analyzing 399 theses over five years, this study provides one of the most up-to-date and field-specific insights into academic productivity among Turkish urology residents. In addition, the exclusion of non-indexed or in-press articles may have led to a partial underestimation of recent publication outcomes. A longitudinal, full-scale analysis of urology residency theses in Türkiye will undoubtedly reveal how research trends evolve and mature over time, while also identifying which subfields remain underrepresented and where future efforts should be concentrated, thereby guiding the focus and productivity of forthcoming urology theses.
These findings underscore that urology residency training in Türkiye not only demonstrates high scientific productivity but also reflects an increasing international integration of Turkish urology within the global research landscape. Continued support for research methodology education and international collaboration will further enhance visibility and citation impact. Establishing national databases that track post-thesis publication and citation trends would facilitate more systematic evaluations of academic productivity. Future investigations that integrate citation metrics, collaboration mapping, and funding analyses will help clarify the academic trajectory and international visibility of Turkish urology research.
In summary, this study not only documents the academic output of Turkish urology residency theses but also provides a framework for strengthening future research training and international visibility in the specialty.
DISCUSSION
The present study comprehensively evaluated the publication outcomes of urology residency theses in Türkiye between 2015 and 2020, demonstrating that 58.4% of theses were published as scientific articles, with 36.3% appearing in SCIE-indexed journals. The most frequent subject areas were uro-oncology, endourology, and andrology, with an average publication delay of three years. These findings indicate a notably higher publication performance, suggesting that the field of urology in Türkiye maintains a strong research and publication culture among residency programs. Taken together, these findings not only demonstrate the relative strength of Turkish urology but also provide a benchmark for evaluating the academic efficiency of other medical disciplines in the country.
Söğütdelen and Küçükyangöz (1) reported that 22.7% of Turkish urology theses (2014–2018) were subsequently published as journal articles and that 18.4% were published in PubMed-indexed journals; importantly, SCIE/ESCI stratification was not assessed in their analysis. In contrast, in our cohort (2015–2020; n = 399), the overall publication rate was 58.4%, and 36.3% of theses were published in SCIE-indexed journals. The lower rates in the earlier report may be partially attributable to its 2-year publication window, which is vulnerable to publication time-lag, and to publication ascertainment limited to PubMed and Google Scholar without Scopus, potentially leading to under-detection of thesis-derived articles published outside PubMed coverage.
When compared with other national data, the publication rate of urology theses exceeds the rates reported in general surgery (20.5%) (2), forensic medicine (32.6%) (3), otorhinolaryngology (35.6%) (4), orthopedics (39.5%) (5), and psychiatry (37.7%) (6). The proportion of SCIE-indexed publications in urology (36.3%) also surpasses that of infectious diseases (11.4%) (7), physical medicine and rehabilitation (24.5%) (8) and emergency medicine (18%) (9). More detailed comparative data across medical specialties are presented in Table 5.
This outcome may be attributed to the robust research infrastructure in urology departments, the presence of active academic mentors, and the increasing international collaborations in this specialty. Conversely, relatively lower publication rates observed in other specialties may reflect limited methodological training, high clinical workload, or lack of incentives for publication, as reported by Ferhatoğlu et al. and Çağlayan et al. (2,3). Moreover, international studies echo similar challenges: in France, only 35.3% of radiology theses were published (17), while in India and Peru, the rates were 30% and 17.6%, respectively (18,19). These cross-country similarities highlight the global nature of publication barriers following residency training. This observation underscores that the barriers to publication are not purely structural but also cultural, encompassing motivation, mentorship accessibility, and institutional emphasis on academic productivity.
Factors that influence successful publication have been repeatedly emphasized in the literature. Prospective or experimental study designs and inclusion of multivariate analysis were found to increase the likelihood of publication (3,20). The academic rank and publication productivity (H-index) of thesis advisors were also correlated with the success of publication in the endocrinology and psychiatry fields (6,21,22). Our findings support these observations, as a considerable proportion of urology theses involved prospective data collection, multicenter collaboration, and laboratory-based experimental designs, all of which are associated with higher-level evidence studies. Furthermore, the average publication delay of three years aligns with data from anesthesiology (3.1 years) (10) and forensic medicine (2.95 years) (3), suggesting similar dissemination dynamics across Turkish residency programs.
As presented in Table 3, the journals most frequently selected for thesis-derived publications in this study were International Journal of Clinical Practice and International Urology and Nephrology among SCIE-indexed sources, Urology Research and Practice (formerly Turkish Journal of Urology) within ESCI, and The New Journal of Urology under TR-Index indexing.
The observed emphasis on uro-oncology among urology theses parallels trends in high-impact subspecialties worldwide. Oncology-related dissertations tend to have greater visibility, higher citation impact, and a higher probability of acceptance in SCIE-indexed journals, as previously reported in orthopedics and general surgery (2,5). Nevertheless, the dominance of a single subspecialty may indicate a potential imbalance in research diversity, emphasizing the need to promote underrepresented fields such as pediatric urology or functional urology.
Temporal patterns of publication output were also evaluated (Figure 2). As shown in Figure 2, a steady upward trend was observed in the number of thesis-derived publications and SCIE-indexed articles from 2015 onward, reaching its peak during the 2020–2021 period. After this peak, both the total number of publications and SCIE-indexed outputs exhibited a noticeable decline. However, it should be acknowledged that, since the present analysis was conducted in 2025 and encompasses urology residency theses completed between 2015 and 2020, a substantial proportion of theses from the early 2020s may still be undergoing the publication process. Thus, the apparent post-2021 decline likely represents a time-lag effect rather than a genuine reduction in academic productivity. This rise-and-fall pattern may instead reflect a partial snapshot within a broader continuum of scholarly productivity, emphasizing the importance of longitudinal evaluations to more accurately capture the evolving trends in the dissemination of urology theses in Türkiye. Notably, this temporal pattern aligns with the global disruptions in academic output during the COVID-19 pandemic years, which may have temporarily influenced research dissemination cycles.
Beyond publication frequency, the citation performance of SCIE-indexed theses provides an additional dimension for evaluating academic influence. When limited to SCIE-indexed publications, citation analysis provides a more accurate reflection of the scientific visibility and long-term impact of residency research. Across various medical specialties in Türkiye, the mean number of citations for SCIE-indexed thesis-derived articles has been reported to range between 8 and 15. In general surgery, the average citation count for SCIE-indexed publications was 8.6 ± 12.1, while orthopedic and thoracic surgery theses achieved mean citation values of 12.4 ± 18.7 and 9.8 ± 11.3, respectively (2,5,15). In comparison, the present study demonstrated that urology theses published in SCIE-indexed journals had an average citation rate of 12.6 ± 16.5, indicating that urology maintains one of the highest citation impacts among medical specialties in Türkiye. This suggests that the scientific influence of urology theses, as reflected by citation performance, is comparable to or exceeds that observed in other surgically oriented specialties. These findings highlight that, beyond publication counts, the quality and scholarly influence of SCIE-indexed outputs serve as critical indicators of academic productivity. Continued monitoring of citation metrics within SCIE journals will be essential for assessing the evolving global impact of Turkish urology research.
Globally, structural determinants such as mentorship quality, institutional incentives, and research funding availability have been shown to strongly affect the transition from thesis to publication (17–19). Countries with institutionalized mentorship and protected research time, like Sweden and Finland, report higher publication rates (33–38%) (23,24). Building upon the existing academic strength of Turkish urology, establishing sustainable academic ecosystems within training centers remains essential for maintaining and further improving scholarly productivity. In addition to methodological rigor, factors such as English-language proficiency, access to statistical support, and the presence of research training during residency have been shown to play crucial roles in transforming theses into publishable manuscripts (25).
This study’s findings must be interpreted in light of certain limitations. Although the bibliometric coverage was comprehensive, publication identification relied on author name and title matching, which may lead to underestimation. Additionally, cross-specialty comparisons should be made cautiously, as methodological rigor and indexing practices differ among fields. Nevertheless, by analyzing 399 theses over five years, this study provides one of the most up-to-date and field-specific insights into academic productivity among Turkish urology residents. In addition, the exclusion of non-indexed or in-press articles may have led to a partial underestimation of recent publication outcomes. A longitudinal, full-scale analysis of urology residency theses in Türkiye will undoubtedly reveal how research trends evolve and mature over time, while also identifying which subfields remain underrepresented and where future efforts should be concentrated, thereby guiding the focus and productivity of forthcoming urology theses.
These findings underscore that urology residency training in Türkiye not only demonstrates high scientific productivity but also reflects an increasing international integration of Turkish urology within the global research landscape. Continued support for research methodology education and international collaboration will further enhance visibility and citation impact. Establishing national databases that track post-thesis publication and citation trends would facilitate more systematic evaluations of academic productivity. Future investigations that integrate citation metrics, collaboration mapping, and funding analyses will help clarify the academic trajectory and international visibility of Turkish urology research.
In summary, this study not only documents the academic output of Turkish urology residency theses but also provides a framework for strengthening future research training and international visibility in the specialty.