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.

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.

Assessing the Efficacy of ChatGPT Versus Human Researchers in Identifying Relevant Studies on mHealth Interventions for Improving Medication Adherence in Patients With Ischemic Stroke When Conducting Systematic Reviews: Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT by OpenAI emerged as a potential tool for researchers, aiding in various aspects of research. One such application was the identification of relevant studies in systematic reviews. However, a comprehensive comparison of the efficacy of relevant study identification between human researchers and ChatGPT has not been conducted. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the efficacy of ChatGPT and human researchers in identifying relevant studies on medication adherence improvement using mobile health interventions in patients with ischemic stroke during systematic reviews. METHODS: This study used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Four electronic databases, including CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE, were searched to identify articles published from inception until 2023 using search terms based on MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms generated by human researchers versus ChatGPT. The authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full text of the studies identified through separate searches conducted by human researchers and ChatGPT. The comparison encompassed several aspects, including the ability to retrieve relevant studies, accuracy, efficiency, limitations, and challenges associated with each method. RESULTS: A total of 6 articles identified through search terms generated by human researchers were included in the final analysis, of which 4 (67%) reported improvements in medication adherence after the intervention. However, 33% (2/6) of the included studies did not clearly state whether medication adherence improved after the intervention. A total of 10 studies were included based on search terms generated by ChatGPT, of which 6 (60%) overlapped with studies identified by human researchers. Regarding the impact of mobile health interventions on medication adherence, most included studies (8/10, 80%) based on search terms generated by ChatGPT reported improvements in medication adherence after the intervention. However, 20% (2/10) of the studies did not clearly state whether medication adherence improved after the intervention. The precision in accurately identifying relevant studies was higher in human researchers (0.86) than in ChatGPT (0.77). This is consistent with the percentage of relevance, where human researchers (9.8%) demonstrated a higher percentage of relevance than ChatGPT (3%). However, when considering the time required for both humans and ChatGPT to identify relevant studies, ChatGPT substantially outperformed human researchers as it took less time to identify relevant studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative analysis highlighted the strengths and limitations of both approaches. Ultimately, the choice between human researchers and ChatGPT depends on the specific requirements and objectives of each review, but the collaborative synergy of both approaches holds the potential to advance evidence-based research and decision-making in the health care field.

Medical researchers' perceptions regarding research evaluation: a web-based survey in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: Japanese medical academia continues to depend on quantitative indicators, contrary to the general trend in research evaluation. To understand this situation better and facilitate discussion, this study aimed to examine how Japanese medical researchers perceive quantitative indicators and qualitative factors of research evaluation and their differences by the researchers' characteristics. DESIGN: We employed a web-based cross-sectional survey and distributed the self-administered questionnaire to academic society members via the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences. PARTICIPANTS: We received 3139 valid responses representing Japanese medical researchers in any medical research field (basic, clinical and social medicine). OUTCOMES: The subjective importance of quantitative indicators and qualitative factors in evaluating researchers (eg, the journal impact factor (IF) or the originality of the research topic) was assessed on a four-point scale, with 1 indicating 'especially important' and 4 indicating 'not important'. The attitude towards various opinions in quantitative and qualitative research evaluation (eg, the possibility of research misconduct or susceptibility to unconscious bias) was also evaluated on a four-point scale, ranging from 1, 'strongly agree', to 4, 'completely disagree'. RESULTS: Notably, 67.4% of the medical researchers, particularly men, younger and basic medicine researchers, responded that the journal IF was important in researcher evaluation. Most researchers (88.8%) agreed that some important studies do not get properly evaluated in research evaluation using quantitative indicators. The respondents perceived quantitative indicators as possibly leading to misconduct, especially in basic medicine (strongly agree-basic, 22.7%; clinical, 11.7%; and social, 16.1%). According to the research fields, researchers consider different qualitative factors, such as the originality of the research topic (especially important-basic, 46.2%; social, 39.1%; and clinical, 32.0%) and the contribution to solving clinical and social problems (especially important-basic, 30.4%; clinical, 41.0%; and social, 52.0%), as important. Older researchers tended to believe that qualitative research evaluation was unaffected by unconscious bias. CONCLUSION: Despite recommendations from the Declaration on Research Assessment and the Leiden Manifesto to de-emphasise quantitative indicators, this study found that Japanese medical researchers have actually tended to prioritise the journal IF and other quantitative indicators based on English-language publications in their research evaluation. Therefore, constantly reviewing the research evaluation methods while respecting the viewpoints of researchers from different research fields, generations and genders is crucial.

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.

Shining a spotlight on the inclusion of disabled participants in clinical trials: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: It is crucial to include a wide range of the population in clinical trials for the outcome to be applicable in real-world settings. Existing literature indicates that under-served groups, including disabled people, have been excluded from participating in clinical trials without justification. Exclusion from clinical trials exacerbates disparities in healthcare and diminishes the benefits for excluded populations. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate potential obstacles that prevent disabled people from participating in clinical trials in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: The study was carried out through an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. The Imperial Clinical Trials Unit devised and implemented an online questionnaire-based survey (with open/closed-ended questions) and an online focus group discussion. The target population were disabled people, family members/carers of disabled people and staff involved in clinical trials, whereupon the sample was recruited by convenience sampling methods via posters and emails through various networks. The Qualtrics XM survey system was used as the host platform for the online survey, and Microsoft Teams was used for an online focus group discussion. The focus group discussion was conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the themes identified from the survey responses. We analysed responses to the survey via descriptive analysis and used thematic analysis to synthesise the free-text answers from the survey and focus group discussion. RESULTS: We received 45 responses to the survey questionnaire and 5 disabled people took part in a focus group discussion. Our findings highlighted the differences between the perspectives of researchers and those "being researched" and different types of barriers experienced by disabled people: opportunity barriers (inadequate recruitment strategy and ambiguous eligibility criteria), awareness barriers (perception of disability) and acceptance/refusal barriers (available support and adjustment, and sharing of trial results). CONCLUSION: Our findings support perspectives drawn from the Ford Framework regarding the need to consider all barriers, not just up to the point of enrolment into trials but also beyond the point of inclusion in clinical trials. We support calls for the introduction of legislation on including disabled people in clinical trials, implementation of industry/community-wide participatory approaches and the development of guidelines, a combined public-private approach.

Research practice, satisfaction, motivation, and challenges among university academics in Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

BACKGROUND: Researchers in universities and academic institutions must be in a leading position in generating research evidence to inform and direct national policies and strategies, improve service delivery, and achieve the main objectives. This study aimed to determine the factors that promote or hinder research productivity and quality among university academics in Kurdistan Region of Iraq. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 949 university academics from all public universities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The authors developed a questionnaire that included sociodemographic data, challenges, satisfaction, and motivation for conducting research. Data were collected using a Google form. Frequencies, percentages, and the Chi-square test were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Most university academics (94.6%) believed that research was part of their job, but only 51.6% were satisfied with their role as academic researchers. The lack of financial motivation was the main reason for dissatisfaction, while the main incentive to conduct research was the passion for science. Around 21% of the university academics had not published any research, while 53.1% published 1-5 articles. Half of the participants (49.7%) lacked training in writing research proposals, and the majority (86.1%) have not applied for international grants. Approximately half of university academics (46.9%) shared their research findings with stakeholders, and the primary method was by sharing their published papers (59.4%), followed by seminars (42.2%). One of the important challenges in conducting research was the lack of funding (62.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The academics at universities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq are passionate about their role as researchers, but face many challenges in conducting effective research. A strategic plan is needed to provide an encouraging environment for university academics regarding infrastructure, financial, and technical support. More studies are needed to identify the root factors of academic staff needs and challenges.

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research.

Scientists are enthusiastically imagining ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) tools might improve research. Why are AI tools so attractive and what are the risks of implementing them across the research pipeline? Here we develop a taxonomy of scientists' visions for AI, observing that their appeal comes from promises to improve productivity and objectivity by overcoming human shortcomings. But proposed AI solutions can also exploit our cognitive limitations, making us vulnerable to illusions of understanding in which we believe we understand more about the world than we actually do. Such illusions obscure the scientific community's ability to see the formation of scientific monocultures, in which some types of methods, questions and viewpoints come to dominate alternative approaches, making science less innovative and more vulnerable to errors. The proliferation of AI tools in science risks introducing a phase of scientific enquiry in which we produce more but understand less. By analysing the appeal of these tools, we provide a framework for advancing discussions of responsible knowledge production in the age of AI.