Recognising the importance and impact of Imaging Scientists: Global guidelines for establishing career paths within core facilities.

In the dynamic landscape of scientific research, imaging core facilities are vital hubs propelling collaboration and innovation at the technology development and dissemination frontier. Here, we present a collaborative effort led by Global BioImaging (GBI), introducing international recommendations geared towards elevating the careers of Imaging Scientists in core facilities. Despite the critical role of Imaging Scientists in modern research ecosystems, challenges persist in recognising their value, aligning performance metrics and providing avenues for career progression and job security. The challenges encompass a mismatch between classic academic career paths and service-oriented roles, resulting in a lack of understanding regarding the value and impact of Imaging Scientists and core facilities and how to evaluate them properly. They further include challenges around sustainability, dedicated training opportunities and the recruitment and retention of talent. Structured across these interrelated sections, the recommendations within this publication aim to propose globally applicable solutions to navigate these challenges. These recommendations apply equally to colleagues working in other core facilities and research institutions through which access to technologies is facilitated and supported. This publication emphasises the pivotal role of Imaging Scientists in advancing research programs and presents a blueprint for fostering their career progression within institutions all around the world.

Barriers to participation in biosampling-based translational research: A cross-sectional survey of Canadian critical care researchers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Collection of biosamples for translational research studies is vital for understanding biological pathways, discovering disease-related biomarkers, and identifying novel therapeutic targets. However, a lack of infrastructure for sample procurement, processing, storage, and shipping may hinder the ability of clinical research units to effectively engage in translational research. The purpose of this study was to identify the barriers to biosampling-based translational research in the critical care setting in Canada. METHODS: We administered an online survey to members of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (CCCTG), the Canadian Critical Care Translational Biology Group (CCCTBG), and the Canadian Critical Care Research Coordinators Group (CCCRCG). The survey focused on participants' personal experience of biosampling research, research infrastructure, motivating factors, and perceived barriers. RESULTS: We received 59 responses from 31 sites, including 6 community intensive care unit (ICU) sites. The overall response rate was 11.3%. The majority of respondents were research coordinators (44%), followed by clinician-investigators (33.8%), graduate students (10.2%), and PhD-investigators (8.5%). Although most (63.8%) respondents reported an interest in participating in translational research, they also reported that their ICUs were currently contributing to a third of the number of translational studies compared to clinical studies. For respondents with experience in participating in translational research studies, the most common barriers were lack of funding, lack of time, and insufficient research staff. For respondents without previous experience, the perceived facilitators were more interest from their research group, improved training/mentorship, increased funding, and better access to laboratory equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey found that the majority of participants were interested in and recognize the value of participating in biosampling-based translational research but lacked funding, time, and research personnel trained in biosampling protocols. Our survey also identified factors that might encourage participation at new sites. Addressing these barriers will be a key step towards increasing translational research capacity across Canada.

Is it time to reduce the length of postgraduate training for physician-scientists in internal medicine?

Physician-scientists play a crucial role in advancing medical knowledge and patient care, yet the long periods of time required to complete training may impede expansion of this workforce. We examined the relationship between postgraduate training and time to receipt of NIH or Veterans Affairs career development awards (CDAs) for physician-scientists in internal medicine. Data from NIH RePORTER were analyzed for internal medicine residency graduates who received specific CDAs (K08, K23, K99, or IK2) in 2022. Additionally, information on degrees and training duration was collected. Internal medicine residency graduates constituted 19% of K awardees and 28% of IK2 awardees. Of MD-PhD internal medicine-trained graduates who received a K award, 92% received a K08 award; of MD-only graduates who received a K award, a majority received a K23 award. The median time from medical school graduation to CDA was 9.6 years for K awardees and 10.2 years for IK2 awardees. The time from medical school graduation to K or IK2 award was shorter for US MD-PhD graduates than US MD-only graduates. We propose that the time from medical school graduation to receipt of CDAs must be shortened to accelerate training and retention of physician-scientists.

Productive scientists are associated with lower disruption in scientific publishing.

While scientific researchers often aim for high productivity, prioritizing the quantity of publications may come at the cost of time and effort dedicated to individual research. It is thus important to examine the relationship between productivity and disruption for individual researchers. Here, we show that with the increase in the number of published papers, the average citation per paper will be higher yet the mean disruption of papers will be lower. In addition, we find that the disruption of scientists' papers may decrease when they are highly productive in a given year. The disruption of papers in each year is not determined by the total number of papers published in the author's career, but rather by the productivity of that particular year. Besides, more productive authors also tend to give references to recent and high-impact research. Our findings highlight the potential risks of pursuing productivity and aim to encourage more thoughtful career planning among scientists.

Measurement and analysis of change in research scholars' knowledge and attitudes toward statistics after PhD coursework.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of statistics is highly important for research scholars, as they are expected to submit a thesis based on original research as part of a PhD program. As statistics play a major role in the analysis and interpretation of scientific data, intensive training at the beginning of a PhD programme is essential. PhD coursework is mandatory in universities and higher education institutes in India. This study aimed to compare the scores of knowledge in statistics and attitudes towards statistics among the research scholars of an institute of medical higher education in South India at different time points of their PhD (i.e., before, soon after and 2-3 years after the coursework) to determine whether intensive training programs such as PhD coursework can change their knowledge or attitudes toward statistics. METHODS: One hundred and thirty research scholars who had completed PhD coursework in the last three years were invited by e-mail to be part of the study. Knowledge and attitudes toward statistics before and soon after the coursework were already assessed as part of the coursework module. Knowledge and attitudes towards statistics 2-3 years after the coursework were assessed using Google forms. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was also sought. RESULTS: Knowledge and attitude scores improved significantly subsequent to the coursework (i.e., soon after, percentage of change: 77%, 43% respectively). However, there was significant reduction in knowledge and attitude scores 2-3 years after coursework compared to the scores soon after coursework; knowledge and attitude scores have decreased by 10%, 37% respectively. CONCLUSION: The study concluded that the coursework program was beneficial for improving research scholars' knowledge and attitudes toward statistics. A refresher program 2-3 years after the coursework would greatly benefit the research scholars. Statistics educators must be empathetic to understanding scholars' anxiety and attitudes toward statistics and its influence on learning outcomes.

How researchers can translate health evidence into books for children.

The health promotion literature that considers how scientific evidence can be effectively communicated tends to focus on evaluating the effectiveness of communication materials. This has resulted in a knowledge gap regarding effective knowledge translation processes. This study explores the process, reasoning and practices for developing books for children that incorporate evidence-based information to aid understanding of scientific evidence about health and environmental or natural disasters. This study is informed by a systematic review of the literature combined with responses to an email interview with authors of books for children. Nine published studies were included in the systematic review. Twenty-two authors responded to the email survey (25% response rate, following 86 invitations). We report seven key findings to guide the development of health-promoting books for children: (i) understand the needs and expectations of the audience, (ii) articulate the topic and research evidence, (iii) assemble a team with a mix of content knowledge and creative expertise, (iv) format should be chosen to suit the user group and guided by the creative team, (v) early testing with children and their support system is crucial, (vi) develop a dissemination strategy to reach the user group and (vii) engage in reflexivity through evaluation of effectiveness of messaging. The current investigation can guide the process, reasoning and practice of developing books for children that incorporate evidence about health and environmental disasters.

Shapeshifters: Global South scholars and their tensions in border-crossing to Global North journals.

INTRODUCTION: Global South researchers struggle to publish in Global North journals, including journals dedicated to research on health professions education (HPE). As a consequence, Western perspectives and values dominate the international academic landscape of HPE. This study sought to understand Global South researchers' motivations and experiences of publishing in Global North journals. METHODS: This study used a hermeneutic phenomenological perspective. Unstructured interviews were conducted with 11 authors from 6 Global South countries. Interview transcripts were analysed through a process of familiarisation, identifying significant statements, formulating meanings, clustering themes, developing exhaustive descriptions, producing a fundamental structure and seeking verification. RESULTS: Participants described being motivated by local institutional expectations, to improve reputation, to meet Global North perceptions of quality and to draw attention to their Global South context. Participants described experiences where their work was deemed irrelevant to Global North audiences, they were unable to interpret rejections and had learnt to play the publishing game by attending to both local and global imperatives. These motivations and experiences revealed several practical, academic and transformational tensions that Global South authors faced. CONCLUSION: The tensions and negotiations encountered by Global South authors who publish in HPE journals reflect a 'border consciousness' whereby authors must shift consciousness, or become 'shapeshifters', inhabiting two or more worlds as they cross borders between the Global South and Global North conventions. There is an added burden and risk in performing this shapeshifting, as Global South authors stand astride the borders of two worlds without belonging fully to either.

Person-organization fit and job burnout of researchers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Heterogeneity in eleven countries.

To manage the negative impact of job burnout for the researchers, especially during COVID-19 pandemic, is not easy. Thus, it is essential for educational institutions to provide them with the support they need to improve the person-organization (P-O) fit. Drawing upon the data from the Nature's Global Survey initiated in 2021, this paper analyzed 2,424 effective samples from eleven countries in the world to investigate how P-O fit impacts researchers' job burnout in different countries and their career stages during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings show that both organizational support and P-O fit have significantly assisted researchers in all career stages to reduce job burnout. Moreover, P-O fit has a greater inhibitory effect on job burnout than organizational support. However, when resources are relatively scarce in some developing countries, it is more important to provide organizational support for researchers. Therefore, in order to improve the efficiency of organizational support and reduce researchers' job burnout, those aspects which are less fit but helpful should be increased appropriately. Moreover, it implies that it would be significant to emphasize the differentiated and career-stage-sensitive resources and support to researchers in different countries in the post-pandemic era to improve researchers' well-being and organizational performance.

Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to open science: An international, cross-sectional survey.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Open science (OS) aims to make the dissemination of knowledge and the research process transparent and accessible to everyone. With the increasing popularity of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM), our goal was to explore what are CAIM researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to OS. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online survey of researchers who published in journals listed in Scopus containing the words "complementary", "alternative", or "integrative" medicine in their names. We emailed 6040 researchers our purpose-built electronic survey after extracting their email address from one of their publications in our sample of journals. We questioned their familiarity with different OS concepts, along with their experiences and challenges engaging in these practices over the last 12 months. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 392 researchers (6.5% response rate, 97.1% completion rate). Most respondents were CAIM researchers familiar with the overall concept of OS, indicated by those actively publishing open access (OA) (n = 244, 76.0%), registering a study protocol (n = 148, 48.0%), and using reporting guidelines (n = 181, 59.0%) in the past 12 months. Preprinting, sharing raw data, and sharing study materials were less popular. A lack of funding was reported as the greatest barrier to publishing OA by most respondents (n = 252, 79.0%), and that additional funding is the most significant incentive in applying more OS practices to their research (n = 229,72.2%). With respect to preprinting barriers, 36.3% (n = 110) participants believed there are potential harms in sharing non-peer-reviewed work and 37.0% (n = 112) feared preprinting would reduce the likelihood of their manuscript being accepted by a journal. Respondents were also concerned about intellectual property control regarding sharing data (n = 94, 31.7%) and research study materials (n = 80, 28.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Although many participants were familiar with and practiced aspects of OS, many reported facing barriers relating to lack of funding to enable OS and perceived risks of revealing research ideas and data prior to publication. Future research should monitor the adoption and implementation of OS interventions in CAIM.

Career trajectories of MD-PhD physician scientists: The loss of women investigators.

Advances in biomedical research require a robust physician scientist workforce. Despite being equally successful at securing early career awards from the NIH as men, women MD-PhD physician scientists are less likely to serve as principal investigators on mid- and later careers awards. Here, we discuss the causes of gender disparities in academic medicine, the implications of losing highly trained women physician scientists, and the institutional and systemic changes needed to sustain this pool of talented investigators.

Expanding research impact through engaging the maker community and collaborating with digital content creators.

This paper proposes a method for increasing the impact of academic research by providing materials for public use, thus engaging the maker community, and by collaborating with internet content creators to extend the reach. We propose a framework for engagement and report a multi-year study that evaluates short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes, with a second effort to demonstrate repeatability of the short-term outcomes. In the first study, we posted forty-one 3D printable compliant mechanisms on public repositories and collaborated with physicist and content creator Derek Muller (Veritasium YouTube channel). Outputs and outcomes from this interaction were measured over 3 years. The framework was exercised again with four new 3D printable mechanisms in collaboration with engineer and STEM influencer Mark Rober. The proposed methods aim to help researchers extend the reach of their work to broader audiences, including professional engineers, hardware designers, educators, students, researchers, and hobbyists. This work demonstrates promising impacts of the framework, including (1) extending public awareness of research findings to broader audiences by engaging the maker community and collaborating with content creators, (2) accelerating the pace of innovation and further hardware-based research through public application of research findings, (3) fostering a culture of open-source design and collaboration among other researchers, engineers, educators, and makers, and (4) increasing utilization of peer-reviewed published content. These outreach practices can be valuable tools for researchers to increase impact of and excitement for their research.

Researcher, research thyself? Mapping the landscape of canine health and welfare research funding provided by UK not-for-profit organisations from 2012-2022.

BACKGROUND: Research into canine health and welfare is supported by Government, charitable and private UK funding organisations. However, there is no current overall visibility or coordination of these funding activities, potentially compromising optimal distribution of limited resources. This study aimed to survey UK canine health and welfare funding by not-for-profit funders between 2012 and 2022, providing a novel baseline analysis to inform future sector stakeholder priorities. RESULTS: Funding data were collected from 10 wide-scope funders (UK Government funding councils and medical charities), 18 animal-directed funders (organisations specifically concerned with animal health and welfare) and 81 breed community groups. These 109 UK funders together provided traceable canine-relevant funding of £57.8 million during the surveyed period, comprising 684 individual grant awards supporting over 500 separate research projects. Wide-scope funders contributed £41.2 million (71.2% of total funding); animal-directed organisations, £16.3 million (28.1% of total funding); and breed-specific groups, £370K (0.6% of total funding). Individual grants ranged from £2.3 million to £300. Funding patterns varied between sectors. Animal-directed funders provided £14.7 million of canine-relevant research funding that foregrounded the dog, 73% of all such funding; wide-scope funders provided £17.5 million of canine-relevant One Health research funding, 97% of all such funding. Customised metrics developed for this study assessed the 'benefit to the dog' and 'pathway to impact' of individual research projects. Overall, studies supported by animal-directed funders achieved significantly higher 'benefit to the dog' scores (Mann-Whitney U = 45235, p<0.001) and 'pathway to impact' scores (Mann-Whitney U = 43506.5, p<0.001) than those supported by wide-scope funders. CONCLUSION: The landscape of UK not-for-profit funding of canine health and welfare research is complex, with considerable variation between providers. Although wide-scope funders provide the majority of overall canine-relevant research funding, animal-directed funders provide the majority of canine-focused funding and support research with greater direct impact on canine welfare. Visibility of past funding patterns will enable stakeholders in this sector to make more informed decisions about future research. DEFINITIONS: To increase clarity, certain words and phrases are used in specific ways within the context of this paper. Animal-directed funders-Charities and other funding organisations whose remit primarily concerns animals or veterinary work Canine-focused research-Investigations where the primary purpose is to advance understandings of canine health and/or welfare Canine-relevant research-All research that is framed as advancing understandings of canine health and/or welfare as a primary or subsidiary purpose Institution-Refers to universities and other centres where research is carried out Organisation-Refers to funding bodies, including research councils, charities and other groups Research grant-A single funding event originating from one or more funders Research project-A cohesive piece of research concerning a particular topic; may involve multiple researchers and/or multiple research grants, in series or in parallel Wide-scope funders-Large organisations whose remit does not primarily concern animals, i.e. (in this dataset) UKRI councils and the Wellcome Trust.

Development of the Mentoring in Undergraduate Research Survey.

Here we present the development of the Mentoring in Undergraduate Research Survey (MURS) as a measure of a range of mentoring experienced by undergraduate science researchers. We drafted items based on qualitative research and refined the items through cognitive interviews and expert sorting. We used one national dataset to evaluate the internal structure of the measure and a second national dataset to examine how responses on the MURS related to theoretically relevant constructs and student characteristics. Our factor analytic results indicate seven lower order forms of mentoring experiences: abusive supervision, accessibility, technical support, psychosocial support, interpersonal mismatch, sexual harassment, and unfair treatment. These forms of mentoring mapped onto two higher-order factors: supportive and destructive mentoring experiences. Although most undergraduates reported experiencing supportive mentoring, some reported experiencing absence of supportive as well as destructive experiences. Undergraduates who experienced less supportive and more destructive mentoring also experienced lower scientific integration and a dampening of their beliefs about the value of research. The MURS should be useful for investigating the effects of mentoring experienced by undergraduate researchers and for testing interventions aimed at fostering supportive experiences and reducing or preventing destructive experiences and their impacts.