[Scientific production in Scopus on financial health: period 2011-2022]. / Producción científica en Scopus sobre salud financiera: periodo 2011-2022.

INTRODUCTION: Financial health is related to the overall health of an individual and their family. The objective of this study was to evaluate the scientific production on financial health in the Scopus database for the 2011-2022 period. METHOD: Scoping review of manuscripts published in journals indexed in the Scopus database between the years 2011 and 2022. The following search terms were used: "Financial obligations", "financial inclusion", "family economy", "financial education", "financial literacy", "financial wellness" and "financial stress", which were entered in the Scopus search engine together with the Boolean operators (AND, OR).  Results: A total of 6 940 publications were identified, of which 81.95% were original articles. The United States was the country with the highest scientific production (35.5%). We identified a trend of increasing number of papers during the study period, especially from 2016 onward, with an 860% increase in 2022 (n=1429) with respect to 2011 (n=165). The journals with the highest number of publications were Sustainability (Switzerland) and the Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning (USA). Finally, the key search terms with the greatest yield were "financial inclusion" through the use of technology, "financial stress", "financial education" and "financial health." CONCLUSIONS: Research on financial health has increased significantly. The new knowledge on the subject is mostly driven by authors and institutions from the United States, and finally, there is evidence of an increasing trend of pulbications related to financial inclusion and financial education.

Introducción: La salud financiera, determinada en buena parte por el salario, está estrechamente relacionada a la salud global del individuo y su familia. Por ello se tuvo como objetivo evaluar la producción científica sobre salud financiera en la base de datos Scopus: periodo 2011 - 2022. Método: Scoping review en la que se analizaron manuscritos publicados en revistas indexadas en la base de datos Scopus entre los años 2011 - 2022. Para la búsqueda se utilizó descriptores tales como financial obligations, financial inclusion, family economy, financial education, financial literacy, financial wellness y financial stress. Se realizó una síntesis narrativa. Resultados: Se incluyeron 6 940 manuscritos, de los cuales el 82,0% eran artículos originales. Se observó un crecimiento constante del número de artículos a lo largo del periodo de estudio, especialmente a partir de 2016, con un incremento del 860% en 2022 (n = 1429) respecto a 2011 (n=165). Estados Unidos fue el país con mayor producción científica. Las revistas con mayor número de publicaciones fueron Sustainability (Suiza) y el Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning (EEUU). Entre los descriptores de mayor impacto se encuentran la inclusión financiera a través del uso de la tecnología, estrés financiero, educación financiera y salud financiera. Conclusiones: La investigación sobre salud financiera ha tenido un aumento significativo. El nuevo conocimiento sobre el tema es impulsado por autores e instituciones de Estados Unidos en su mayoría, y finalmente, se evidencian tendencias de estudio relacionadas a la inclusión y educación financiera.

Broadening the Environmental Lens to Include Social and Structural Determinants of Women's Health Disparities.

BACKGROUND: Due to the physical, metabolic, and hormonal changes before, during, and after pregnancy, women-defined here as people assigned female at birth-are particularly susceptible to environmental insults. Racism, a driving force of social determinants of health, exacerbates this susceptibility by affecting exposure to both chemical and nonchemical stressors to create women's health disparities. OBJECTIVES: To better understand and address social and structural determinants of women's health disparities, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) hosted a workshop focused on the environmental impacts on women's health disparities and reproductive health in April 2022. This commentary summarizes foundational research and unique insights shared by workshop participants, who emphasized the need to broaden the definition of the environment to include upstream social and structural determinants of health. We also summarize current challenges and recommendations, as discussed by workshop participants, to address women's environmental and reproductive health disparities. DISCUSSION: The challenges related to women's health equity, as identified by workshop attendees, included developing research approaches to better capture the social and structural environment in both human and animal studies, integrating environmental health principles into clinical care, and implementing more inclusive publishing and funding approaches. Workshop participants discussed recommendations in each of these areas that encourage interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers, clinicians, funders, publishers, and community members. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12996.

Relationships among cost, citation, and access in journal publishing by an ecology and evolutionary biology department at a U.S. university.

Background: Optimizing access to high-quality scientific journals has become an important priority for academic departments, including the ability to read the scientific literature and the ability to afford to publish papers in those journals. In this contribution, we assess the question of whether institutional investment in scientific journals aligns with the journals where researchers send their papers for publication, and where they serve as unpaid reviewers and editors. Methods: We assembled a unique suite of information about the publishing habits of our Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, including summaries of 3,540 journal publications by 35 faculty members. These data include economic costs of journals to institutions and to authors, benefits to authors in terms of journal prestige and citation rates, and considerations of ease of reading access for individuals both inside and outside the university. This dataset included data on institutional costs, including subscription pricing (rarely visible to scholars), and "investment" by scholars in supporting journals, such as time spent as editors and reviewers. Results: Our results highlighted the complex set of relationships between these factors, and showed that institutional costs often do not match well with payoffs in terms of benefits to researchers (e.g., citation rate, prestige of journal, ease of access). Overall, we advocate for greater cost-benefit transparency to help compare different journals and different journal business models; such transparency would help both researchers and their institutions in investing wisely the limited resources available to academics.

Toward the advancement of equity in scientific publishing.

Peer review represents the foundation and gatekeeper to scientific dissemination, making it among the most important points to improve the representation of members of diverse gender, racial/ethnic, and other sociodemographic groups. The American Psychological Association (APA) highlights equity, diversity, and inclusion among its guiding principles. APA journals publish a large volume of cutting-edge psychological research (processing 20,000 + submissions per year) and reach a wide audience and have the unique opportunity to contribute to APA's mission by disseminating data on the diversity of those involved in the production of psychological science. In this commentary, we highlight recommendations for actionable steps to promote greater equity in the peer review process. While our recommendations are not exhaustive, we hope that they are steps in the right direction and will contribute to conversations that have already begun regarding actions to address underrepresentation in the scientific process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics.

Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and widely misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping and rewarding the careers of millions of scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be widely gamed in the current "publish or perish" or "get cited or perish" environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, and journal-based gaming as well as gaming with outright fabrication. Different patterns are discussed, including massive authorship of papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work with over-attribution of authorship to too many people (salami slicing of credit), massive self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor gaming, paper mills and spurious content papers, and spurious massive publications for studies with demanding designs. For all of those gaming practices, quantitative metrics and analyses may be able to help in their detection and in placing them into perspective. A portfolio of quantitative metrics may also include indicators of best research practices (e.g., data sharing, code sharing, protocol registration, and replications) and poor research practices (e.g., signs of image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent quantitative metrics that also inform about gaming may strengthen the legacy and practices of quantitative appraisals of scientific work.

Authorship inequalities in global health research: the IeDEA Southern Africa collaboration.

BACKGROUND: The International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS conducts research in several regions, including in Southern Africa. We assessed authorship inequalities for the Southern African region, which is led by South African and Swiss investigators. METHODS: We analysed authorships of publications from 2007 to 2020 by gender, country income group, time and citation impact. We used 2020 World Bank categories to define income groups and the relative citation ratio (RCR) to assess citation impact. Authorship parasitism was defined as articles without authors from the countries where the study was conducted. A regression model examined the probability of different authorship positions. RESULTS: We included 313 articles. Of the 1064 contributing authors, 547 (51.4%) were women, and 223 (21.0%) were from 32 low-income/lower middle-income countries (LLMICs), 269 (25.3%) were from 13 upper middle-income countries and 572 (53.8%) were from 25 high-income countries (HICs). Most articles (150/157, 95.5%) reporting data from Southern Africa included authors from all participating countries. Women were more likely to be the first author than men (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.83) but less likely to be last authors (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.99). Compared with HIC, LLMIC authors were less likely to publish as first (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.41) or last author (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42). The proportion of women and LLMIC first and last authors increased over time. The RCR tended to be higher, indicating greater impact, if first or last authors were from HIC (p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of a global health collaboration co-led by South African and Swiss investigators showed little evidence of authorship parasitism. There were stark inequalities in authorship position, with women occupying more first and men more last author positions and researchers from LLMIC being 'stuck in the middle' on the byline. Global health research collaborations should monitor, analyse and address authorship inequalities.

Making progress in early-career publishing: evolutions of the women's publication mentorship programme.

Mentorship is vital for early-career researchers, especially women from low- and middle-income countries seeking to publish their work. This paper explores the evolution of the Women's Publication Mentorship Programme, a collaborative initiative pioneered by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, further strengthened through the partnership of Health Systems Global, and Health Policy and Planning. Over a span of five years and encompassing three cohorts, the program supported 45 early-career researchers from 24 countries, resulting in insightful papers on equity-oriented health system topics. Beyond the direct outcomes of strengthening the writing skills of first-time women authors and facilitating paper publications, the Programme has also influenced Health System Global's strategic approach and conceptual framework for systemic capacity strengthening in health policy and systems research. It has also played a pivotal role in addressing the longstanding gender imbalance in global health authorship. Amid these achievements, our program consistently evolved, drawing from lessons of the past cohort. Challenges, such as the need for extended paper development timelines, addressing language barriers, and strengthening methodological rigor in initial manuscripts, were met with solutions. Insights and experiences from previous participants translated into tangible results, notably elevating the quality of journal supplement publications. This commentary explores key lessons from the second cohort's journey and its evolving nature. It also highlights persistent challenges and provides practical recommendations for organizations to enhance their mentorship programs, ultimately fostering the career growth of early-career researchers in health policy and systems research.

Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) reporting tool: developing a checklist for policymakers.

INTRODUCTION: Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) is a decision support tool that shows users how a new program, policy, or innovation affects health equity in different population groups. Various HEIA reporting and dissemination tools are available, nevertheless, a practical standard tool to present the results of HEIA in an appropriate period to policymakers is lacking. This work reports the development of a tool (a checklist) for HEIA reporting at the decision-making level, aiming to promote the application of HEIA evidence for improving health equity. METHODS: This is a mixed-method study that was carried out over four stages in 2022-2023: 1) identifying HEIA models, checklists, and reporting instruments; 2) development of the initial HEIA reporting checklist; 3) checklist validation; and 4) piloting the checklist. We also analyzed the Face, CVR, and CVI validity of the tool. RESULTS: We developed the initial checklist through analysis of 53 included studies and the opinions of experts. The final checklist comprised five sections: policy introduction (eight subsections), managing the HEIA of policy (seven subsections), scope of the affected population (three subsections), HEIA results (seven subsections), and recommendations (three subsections). CONCLUSION: Needs assessment, monitoring during implementation, health impact assessment, and other tools such as monitoring outcome reports, appraisals, and checklists are all methods for assessing health equity impact. Other equity-focused indicators, such as the equity lens and equity appraisal, may have slightly different goals than the HEIA. Similarly, the formats for presenting and publishing HEIA reports might vary, depending on the target population and the importance of the report.

ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review.

The peer review process is a critical step in ensuring the quality of scientific research. However, its subjectivity has raised concerns. To investigate this issue, I examined over 500 publicly available peer review reports from 200 published neuroscience papers in 2022-2023. OpenAI's generative artificial intelligence ChatGPT was used to analyze language use in these reports, which demonstrated superior performance compared to traditional lexicon- and rule-based language models. As expected, most reviews for these published papers were seen as favorable by ChatGPT (89.8% of reviews), and language use was mostly polite (99.8% of reviews). However, this analysis also demonstrated high levels of variability in how each reviewer scored the same paper, indicating the presence of subjectivity in the peer review process. The results further revealed that female first authors received less polite reviews than their male peers, indicating a gender bias in reviewing. In addition, published papers with a female senior author received more favorable reviews than papers with a male senior author, for which I discuss potential causes. Together, this study highlights the potential of generative artificial intelligence in performing natural language processing of specialized scientific texts. As a proof of concept, I show that ChatGPT can identify areas of concern in scientific peer review, underscoring the importance of transparent peer review in studying equitability in scientific publishing.

Peer review is a vital step in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research before publication. Experts assess research manuscripts, advise journal editors on publishing them, and provide authors with recommendations for improvement. But some scientists have raised concerns about potential biases and subjectivity in the peer review process. Author attributes, such as gender, reputation, or how prestigious their institution is, may subconsciously influence reviewers' scores. Studying peer review to identify potential biases is challenging. The language reviewers use is very technical, and some of their commentary may be subjective and vary from reviewer to reviewer. The emergence of OpenAI's ChatGPT, which uses machine learning to process large amounts of information, may provide a new tool to analyze peer review for signs of bias. Verharen demonstrated that ChatGPT can be used to analyze peer review reports and found potential indications of gender bias in scientific publishing. In the experiments, Verharen asked ChatGPT to analyze more than 500 reviews of 200 neuroscience studies published in the scientific journal Nature Communications over the past year. The experiments found no evidence that institutional reputation influenced reviews. Yet, female first authors were more likely to receive impolite comments from reviewers. Female senior authors were more likely to receive higher review scores, which may indicate they had to clear a higher bar for publication. The experiments indicate that ChatGPT could be used to analyze peer review for fairness. Verharen suggests that reviewers might apply this tool to ensure their reviews are polite and accurate reflections of their opinions. Scientists or publishers might also use it for large-scale analyses of peer review in individual journals or in scientific publishing more widely. Journals might also use ChatGPT to assess the impact of bias-prevention interventions on review fairness.

Poster Abstracts - Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 2023.

The AMCP Abstract and Poster Program provides a forum for authors to share their research with the managed care pharmacy community. Authors submit their abstracts to AMCP, and each abstract is reviewed by a team of peer reviewers and editors. All accepted abstracts are presented as posters at AMCP's Annual and Nexus meetings. These abstracts are also available through the AMCP meeting app. This JMCP supplement publishes all abstracts that were peer reviewed and accepted for presentation at AMCP 2023. Abstracts submitted in the Student and Encore categories did not undergo peer review; therefore, these abstracts are not included in the supplement.

Diversity, inclusion, and equity at the British Journal of Anaesthesia: 100 years of progress.

The past century, especially the past decade, has seen re-examination and evolution in our views about sex, gender, race, and ethnicity. The British Journal of Anaesthesia is part of an ongoing effort in research and medical publishing, and in health and education more generally, to improve diversity, inclusion, and equity. This editorial highlights the contributions and evolution of the Journal in these areas from its origin until today.

Current situation of Specialized Health Training in pediatrics and its specific areas: Challenges and needs.

The development of pediatric subspecialties constitutes one of the most outstanding events in pediatrics in our country since the mid-20th century. The FSE in pediatrics is currently based on order SCO/3148/2006, of September 20, which approves and publishes the training program for the specialty of pediatrics and its Specific Areas. It is a training program structured in 4 years that manages to train the resident in the necessary skills of pediatrics, including training in transversal skills, training in general pediatrics and must also include training in different specific areas. In 1995 was approved the Specific Training Area (ACE). In pediatrics, ACEs are necessary to guarantee adequate health care for the child and adolescent population, at the same level as adult medicine, ensuring through regulated training, quality and uniform care. We want to give official recognition to what today is a healthcare reality in all the Spanish hospitals.

Gender disparity trends in genitourinary oncology academic publishing over the past 3 decades: A bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine gender disparities in genitourinary (GU) oncology academic publishing over the past three decades. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a bibliometric analysis of eight academic journals featuring GU oncology research articles: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Cancer, European Journal of Cancer, European Urology, Journal of Urology, BJU International, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, and Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. After selecting four time points (1990, 2000, 2010, 2020), we recorded the gender of the first and senior authors and investigated their association with independent variables including publication year, research field, and geographic continent. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 14,786 articles were included in our analyses. Females comprised 25.7% of first and 18.1% of senior authors. Compared to 1990, there was a trend of progressively higher female first author (OR 1.47 [95% CI 1.27-1.69] in 2000; 2.28 [95% CI 2.00-2.59] in 2010; 3.10 [95% CI 2.71-3.55] in 2020) and senior author positions (OR 1.23 [95% CI 1.05-1.45] in 2000; 1.67 [95% CI 1.45-1.93] in 2010; 2.55 [95% CI 2.20-2.96] in 2020). Compared to GU oncology, non-GU oncology articles were more likely to have female first (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.38-2.86) or senior authors (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.35-2.91). Articles from Asia (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38-0.51), Africa (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.91), and international collaborations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.76) had a lower proportion of female first authors compared to North America. First authors were significantly more likely to be female when senior authors were also female (OR 2.45, 95% CI 2.23-2.69). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the bridging trend demonstrated, GU oncology remains a male-predominant discipline. Female leadership and mentorship are pivotal in achieving gender parity in the academic medicine community.