Linguistic gender congruity differentially correlates with film and novel ratings by critics and audiences.

The film and publishing industries are fraught with gender disparities, with men overpowering nearly every sector of these domains. For instance, men are not only paid more than women in the film industry, but they also outnumber women in positions such as director, screenwriter, and lead acting roles. Similarly, women often resort to assuming gender-neutral or male pseudonyms to increase their prospects in the publishing industry. This widespread gender inequality in the film and publishing industries raises the question of how writers' gender relates to gendered language and narrative receptions. Two archival studies examined whether gender-linked language relates to film (N = 521) and novel (N = 150) ratings, and whether those associations differ as a function of writer gender or the expertise of the rater (professional critics and lay audience members). Results demonstrated that female screenwriters and novelists used a more feminine style of writing, whereas male screenwriters and novelists used a more masculine style of writing. Lay audiences gave more positive ratings to films and novels by writers who used a more gender-congruent writing style, in contrast with professional critics, who gave more positive reviews to films by writers who used a more gender-incongruent writing style. Our findings substantiate past research regarding the differing tastes of lay audiences and professional critics in addition to lending insight into subtle social dynamics that may sustain gender biases in the film and publishing industries.

Writing an effective National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget: How to get the money for your science.

In the scheme of developing an application for funding from any federal or foundation source, it is reasonable to place significant attention on the science. However, it is also imperative to remember that your budget is what will provide the resources to make sure you can complete your proposed investigations and, as such, deserves appropriate consideration. In the competitive arena of extramural funding, funding agencies are incentivized to ensure that the funds committed to research will yield maximum impact. A well-thought-out budget demonstrates to the funding agency 2 key factors: (1) that you understand the needs of the project and (2) you have a realistic expectation of the project costs. When these 2 things are communicated to the funding agency, in addition to the significance of your science, it is more likely that you will receive the budget you request. Herein, we put forth the fundamentals for preparing your budget and the nuances that may help you not only be in compliance but also improve your chances of success. This article will discuss issues to consider when designing a budget for large research grants, using the NIH R&R Budget as a prototype.

Produzindo evidências e respostas rápidas no TCC / Producing evidence and quick answers in the undergraduate thesis

Este produto visa orientar todo processo de elaboração de uma resposta rápida para desenvolver um produto que seja de interesse para seu local de trabalho e incorporação dos resultados à dinâmica do serviço. Ele foi pensado e construído para que você possa elaborar o seu produto de resposta rápida com bastante tranquilidade e segurança. Apresenta conteúdos bem explicativos de cada uma das etapas exemplificados, além de indicações de materiais complementares, os quais você poderá acessar para ampliar o seu conhecimento.

This product aims to guide you through the process of developing a rapid response product that is of interest to your workplace and incorporating the results into the dynamics of the service. It has been designed and constructed so that you can develop your rapid response product with a great deal of peace of mind. It contains explanatory content for each of the stages, as well as indications of complementary materials that you can access to broaden your knowledge.

Alphabetical ordering of author surnames in academic publishing: A detriment to teamwork.

INTRODUCTION: In academia, many institutions use journal article publication productivity for making decisions on tenure and promotion, funding grants, and rewarding stellar scholars. Although non-alphabetical sequencing of article coauthoring by the spelling of surnames signals the extent to which a scholar has contributed to a project, many disciplines in academia follow the norm of alphabetical ordering of coauthors in journal publications. By assessing business academic publications, this study investigates the hypothesis that author alphabetical ordering disincentivizes teamwork and reduces the overall quality of scholarship. METHODS: To address our objectives, we accessed data from 21,353 articles published over a 20-year period across the four main business subdisciplines. The articles selected are all those published by the four highest-ranked journals (in each year) and four lower-ranked journals (in each year) for accounting, business technology, marketing, and organizational behavior. Poisson regression and binary logistic regression were utilized for hypothesis testing. RESULTS: This study finds that, although team size among business scholars is increasing over time, alphabetical ordering as a convention in journal article publishing disincentivizes author teamwork. This disincentive results in fewer authors per publication than for publications using contribution-based ordering of authors. Importantly, article authoring teamwork is related to article quality. Specifically, articles written by a single author typically are of lesser quality than articles published by coauthors, but the number of coauthors exhibits decreasing returns to scale-coauthoring teams of one to three are positively related to high-quality articles, but larger teams are not. Alphabetical ordering itself, however, is positively associated with quality even though it inhibits teamwork, but journal article coauthoring has a greater impact on article quality than does alphabetical ordering. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have important implications for academia. Scholars respond to incentives, yet alphabetical ordering of journal article authors conflicts with what is beneficial for the progress of academic disciplines. Based on these findings, we recommend that, to drive the highest-quality research, teamwork should be incentivized-all fields should adopt a contribution-based journal article author-ordering convention and avoid author ordering based upon the spelling of surnames. Although this study was undertaken using articles from business journals, its findings should generalize across all academia.

How to prepare a research proposal in the health sciences? / ¿Cómo elaborar un proyecto de investigación en ciencias de la salud?

Knowing how to properly prepare a research proposal is a real challenge - and being able to prepare an excellent research proposal is increasingly a requirement to compete for funding with assurances of success. With this in mind, we aim to share with the reader our experience (in many cases, unsuccessful) as applicants on the most important aspects of preparing a research proposal and securing its approval and funding. This article aims not only to list theoretical recommendations but also to share some personal and eminently practical suggestions on the following elements of a research proposal: the title, the abstract, the introduction, the objectives, the methodology, the work plan or schedule, the proposal's consistency and coherence, its viability, its applicability, the importance of the principal investigator and the research team, the proposal's limitations and alternatives, its budget, its references, and, finally, the research proposal's form or wording. In summary, a research proposal is a carefully written plan that includes all the scientific, ethical and logistical aspects of the study to be conducted. Writing a good research proposal requires considerable effort and a great deal of time, but it's worth it.

"Languaging" tacit judgment in formal postgraduate assessment: the documentation of ad hoc and summative entrustment decisions.

While subjective judgment is recognized by the health professions education literature as important to assessment, it remains difficult to carve out a formally recognized role in assessment practices for personal experiences, gestalts, and gut feelings. Assessment tends to rely on documentary artefacts-like the forms, standards, and policies brought in under competency-based medical education, for example-to support accountability and fairness. But judgment is often tacit in nature and can be more challenging to surface in explicit (and particularly written) form. What is needed is a nuanced approach to the incorporation of judgment in assessment such that it is neither in danger of being suppressed by an overly rigorous insistence on documentation nor uncritically sanctioned by the defense that it resides in a black box and that we must simply trust the expertise of assessors. The concept of entrustment represents an attempt to effect such a balance within current competency frameworks by surfacing judgments about the degree of supervision learners need to care safely for patients. While there is relatively little published data about its implementation as yet, one readily manifest variation in the uptake of entrustment relates to the distinction between ad hoc and summative forms. The ways in which these forms are languaged, together with their intended purposes and guidelines for their use, point to directions for more focused empirical inquiry that can inform current and future uptake of entrustment in competency-based medical education and the responsible and meaningful inclusion of judgment in assessment more generally.

Librarians collaborate successfully with nursing faculty and a writing centre to support nursing students doing professional doctorates.

This study explores how a three-way collaboration between a University library, writing centre and faculty created avenues of training and support for students within a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) program in an American University. The role of each partner involved in the collaboration is discussed alongside the profile of the DNP students. Lesson planning and classroom techniques for DNP information literacy classes are described and feedback from the partners and the students are discussed. The study confirms that collaboration is effective in improving research and writing skills. D.I.

Idiosyncrasy in Assessment Comments: Do Faculty Have Distinct Writing Styles When Completing In-Training Evaluation Reports?

PURPOSE: Written comments are gaining traction as robust sources of assessment data. Compared with the structure of numeric scales, what faculty choose to write is ad hoc, leading to idiosyncratic differences in what is recorded. This study offers exploration of what aspects of writing styles are determined by the faculty offering comment and what aspects are determined by the trainee being commented upon. METHOD: The authors compiled in-training evaluation report comment data, generated from 2012 to 2015 by 4 large North American Internal Medicine training programs. The Linguistic Index and Word Count (LIWC) was used to categorize and quantify the language contained. Generalizability theory was used to determine whether faculty could be reliably discriminated from one another based on writing style. Correlations and ANOVAs were used to determine what styles were related to faculty or trainee demographics. RESULTS: Datasets contained 23-142 faculty who provided 549-2,666 assessments on 161-989 trainees. Faculty could easily be discriminated from one another using a variety of LIWC metrics including word count, words per sentence, and the use of "clout" words. These patterns appeared person specific and did not reflect demographic factors such as gender or rank. These metrics were similarly not consistently associated with trainee factors such as postgraduate year or gender. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty seem to have detectable writing styles that are relatively stable across the trainees they assess, which may represent an under-recognized source of construct irrelevance. If written comments are to meaningfully contribute to decision making, we need to understand and account for idiosyncratic writing styles.

Taken Out of Context: Hazards in the Interpretation of Written Assessment Comments.

PURPOSE: Written comments are increasingly valued for assessment; however, a culture of politeness and the conflation of assessment with feedback lead to ambiguity. Interpretation requires reading between the lines, which is untenable with large volumes of qualitative data. For computer analytics to help with interpreting comments, the factors influencing interpretation must be understood. METHOD: Using constructivist grounded theory, the authors interviewed 17 experienced internal medicine faculty at 4 institutions between March and July, 2017, asking them to interpret and comment on 2 sets of words: those that might be viewed as "red flags" (e.g., good, improving) and those that might be viewed as signaling feedback (e.g., should, try). Analysis focused on how participants ascribed meaning to words. RESULTS: Participants struggled to attach meaning to words presented acontextually. Four aspects of context were deemed necessary for interpretation: (1) the writer; (2) the intended and potential audiences; (3) the intended purpose(s) for the comments, including assessment, feedback, and the creation of a permanent record; and (4) the culture, including norms around assessment language. These contextual factors are not always apparent; readers must balance the inevitable need to interpret others' language with the potential hazards of second-guessing intent. CONCLUSIONS: Comments are written for a variety of intended purposes and audiences, sometimes simultaneously; this reality creates dilemmas for faculty attempting to interpret these comments, with or without computer assistance. Attention to context is essential to reduce interpretive uncertainty and ensure that written comments can achieve their potential to enhance both assessment and feedback.

A Public Health of Consequence: Shifting the Cultural Narrative From Churning Grants to a Scholarship of Consequence.

A confluence of challenges is impeding faculty members' ability to prioritize research with the goal of achieving a public health of consequence: research designed to improve conditions to produce a healthier society. Together, these challenges create a "churn" culture in which faculty focus on generating new business (i.e., grant funding and associated incentives) to replace lost revenue (i.e., expiring grants); this culture can relegate public health impact to a back seat.We share three strategies and related insights from our efforts to shift our department's cultural narrative from churn to a "scholarship of consequence": crafting research proposals of consequence, fostering thought leadership through collaborative writing, and mentoring faculty with a view to a scholarship of consequence.We describe each of the strategies and interim progress. Although they are a work in progress, we conclude that despite initial concerns, our evaluation metrics indicate improvement.

[How to write a scientific abstract]. / Comment rédiger un abstract scientifique ?

The scientific abstract is an essential part of an article. It resumes it clearly and synthetically in few sentences, while captivating the reader. Being the first paragraph, and sometimes the only one to be read, it should be comprehensive and needs to represent the paper as much as possible in order to motivate readers to continue reading if it corresponds to the subject of interest. It is also the only text to be submitted to conferences, and it is important in the process of application for research fundings too. In this article, we propose a practical guide to help you write a structured and accurate scientific abstract, with some practical tips.

L'abstract scientifique est une partie essentielle d'un article. Il doit le résumer en quelques lignes de façon claire et synthétique tout en captivant le lecteur. Etant la première partie de l'article, et parfois la seule partie lue, elle se doit de refléter au mieux le papier, afin que cette dernière soit lue en entier s'il correspond au sujet recherché. Il est également le seul texte soumis pour accéder aux congrès, et il représente un élément essentiel dans l'évaluation des dossiers pour obtenir des bourses ou des financements de recherche. Dans cet article, nous vous proposons un guide pratique pour vous aider à rédiger un abstract scientifique, afin qu'il soit structuré et précis.

Fostering scholarship in doctoral education: Using a social capital framework to support PhD student writing groups.

The shortage of nurse scientists in the United States complicates nursing's ability to sustain research-intensive environments, build knowledge for translation, and advance nursing science. More emphasis is needed on the preparation of PhD doctoral students to better equip them for a career of scholarship. Four recent PhD graduates participating in a writing group, examined the influence of social capital on their ability to develop capacity for scholarship. They found that a strong social factor supported their efforts to engage as scholars, be accountable for their writing, and make contributions to the research community. Although the writing group provided a space to practice scholarly writing and increased scholarly productivity, the experience was transformative in building capacity for scholarship. This article includes recommendations for academic leaders to both create and support writing groups within doctoral nursing programs using a social capital framework. Strategies are provided using the three dimensions of social capital: structural, relational, and cognitive. Investing in strategies that build social capital within a community can directly impact the advancement of science by elevating capacity for scholarship.