The First National Institutes of Health Institutional Training Program in Emergency Care Research: Productivity and Outcomes.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess the productivity, outcomes, and experiences of participants in the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded K12 institutional research training programs in emergency care research. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods study design to evaluate the 6 K12 programs, including 2 surveys, participant interviews, scholar publications, grant submissions, and funded grants. The training program lasted from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2017. We tracked scholars for a minimum of 3 years and up to 5 years, beginning with date of entry into the program. We interviewed program participants by telephone using open-ended prompts. RESULTS: There were 94 participants, including 43 faculty scholars, 13 principal investigators, 30 non-principal investigator primary mentors, and 8 program administrators. The survey had a 74% overall response rate, including 95% of scholars. On entry to the program, scholars were aged a median of 37 years (interquartile range [IQR] 34 to 40 years), with 16 women (37%), and represented 11 disciplines. Of the 43 scholars, 40 (93%) submitted a career development award or research project grant during or after the program; 26 (60%) have secured independent funding as of August 1, 2017. Starting with date of entry into the program, the median time to grant submission was 19 months (IQR 11 to 27 months) and time to funding was 33 months (IQR 27 to 39 months). Cumulative median publications per scholar increased from 7 (IQR 4 to 15.5) at program entry to 21 (IQR 11 to 33.5) in the first post-K12 year. We conducted 57 semistructured interviews and identified 7 primary themes. CONCLUSION: This training program produced 43 interdisciplinary investigators in emergency care research, with demonstrated productivity in grant funding and publications.

Is authorship sufficient for today's collaborative research? A call for contributor roles.

Assigning authorship and recognizing contributions to scholarly works is challenging on many levels. Here we discuss ethical, social, and technical challenges to the concept of authorship that may impede the recognition of contributions to a scholarly work. Recent work in the field of authorship shows that shifting to a more inclusive contributorship approach may address these challenges. Recent efforts to enable better recognition of contributions to scholarship include the development of the Contributor Role Ontology (CRO), which extends the CRediT taxonomy and can be used in information systems for structuring contributions. We also introduce the Contributor Attribution Model (CAM), which provides a simple data model that relates the contributor to research objects via the role that they played, as well as the provenance of the information. Finally, requirements for the adoption of a contributorship-based approach are discussed.