Exploring Online Health Information Seeking Behaviour (OHISB) among young adults: A scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, information technology and social media have experienced unprecedented growth, particularly in the Nordic countries. However, there is a noticeable lack of comprehensive understanding regarding the latest research findings on online health information seeking behaviour (OHISB) among young adults (18 to >30). There is a need to conduct an updated review to identify knowledge gaps in where young adults find health information and their user interface preferences and to provide research-based guidance and recommendations to governments, health organisations and social media platforms on how to facilitate this prominent pattern. The scoping review protocol outlines a study that will systematically map the existing literature on young adults' preferences for digital platforms and platform characteristics in relation to OHISB, enabling the identification of promising areas for further research and the development of more effective interventions to promote healthy and informed choices. Conducting a scoping review is imperative to gain a comprehensive understanding of young adults' OHISB and support the next generation of dissemination that promotes accurate and reliable digital health information. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will use Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)) and employ the citation pearl method and the Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type model to design the search strategy. To identify relevant literature, three databases will undergo a search: Scopus, Web of Science and EMBASE. Additionally, a subsidiarily grey literature search will be conducted in Google Scholar. The data charting process will conform to the PRISMA-ScR standard and will be further structured with EndNote. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the extracted data will be developed using EndNote and Excel. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Conducting a scoping review involves secondary data analysis of publicly available sources and does not require an ethical review. The protocol will be published to ensure transparency. The scoping review results will be disseminated through open-access peer-reviewed publications, national and international conferences, social media platforms, newspapers and YouTube to service users and stakeholders.

[Christmas article: Get to know yourself and your colleague].

INTRODUCTION: The field of medical studies is rich in stereotypical conceptions of the practitioners of the various medical specialisations. METHOD: By means of a Kahoot of 25 questions about practitioners of nine different medical specialisations, we were trying to see, if a group of people from the medical field (n = 20) and a control group of librarians (n = 22) would answer the questions correctly. The questions were jokes about various medical specialisations, and people were supposed to guess, which kind of medical doctor they described. RESULTS: Those with a background in medical studies were faster and more precise than the librarians. Some of the stereotypes described by the jokes, were known to both groups, others were not. The most familiar stereotypes were those describing anaesthesiologists as sleepy and psychiatrists as crazy. It appeared, that many of the medical speciality stereotypes took their point of departure in the idea, that doctors resemble their patients. CONCLUSION: The survey has limited data, and therefore the conclusion is not very wide-reaching. Some stereotypes were familiar to both groups, others were not. The data indicate that in some cases, contradictory stereotypes exist about individual specialisations.

Effective publication strategies in clinical research.

Researchers in Europe are increasingly assessed by their publication metrics. To uncover the effect of quantitative assessment on the publication strategies of clinical researchers in Denmark, we interviewed 9 senior researchers at the Department of Clinical Research at the University of Southern Denmark with the lowest and highest values for a, as defined by Hirsch. Our aim is to investigate the importance of these metrics to their academic careers: h-index, number of publications, number of citations, international collaborations, local collaborations, field specific journal publishing and high journal impact factor publishing. To validate our findings we compared their publication record to their statistically analyzed stated publication strategy. Our results indicate two styles of publication strategy used by these senior researchers. Researchers with Low a engage in local collaborations, disseminate knowledge in local media and publish in field specific journals, while researchers with High a engage in international collaborations, invest significant time in publishing in the highest impact journals in their field, and acquire a greater number of citations. Both publication strategies can lead to a successful academic career, yet we have an indication through the h5-index that the practices of the High a group are more likely to nudge the h-index.

Comments on "Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge in environmental sciences" by Sonne et al. (2020).

There are major challenges that need to be addressed in the world of scholarly communication, especially in the field of environmental studies and in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Recently, Sonne et al. (2020) published an article in Science of the Total Environment discussing some of these challenges. However, we feel that many of the arguments misrepresent critical elements of Open Access (OA), Plan S, and broader issues in scholarly publishing. In our response, we focus on addressing key elements of their discussion on (i) OA and Plan S, as well as (ii) Open Access Predatory Journals (OAPJ). The authors describe OA and Plan S as restricting author choice, especially through the payment of article-processing charges. The reality is that 'green OA' self-archiving options alleviate virtually all of the risks they mention, and are even the preferred 'routes' to OA as stated by both institutional and national policies in Denmark. In alignment with this, Plan S is also taking a progressive stance on reforming research evaluation. The assumptions these authors make about OA in the "global south" also largely fail to acknowledge some of the progressive work being done in regions like Indonesia and Latin America. Finally, Sonne et al. (2020) highlight the threat that OAPJs face to our scholarly knowledge production system. While we agree generally that OAPJs are problematic, the authors simultaneously fail to mention many of the excellent initiatives helping to combat this threat (e.g., the Directory of Open Access Journals). We call for researchers to more effectively equip themselves with sufficient knowledge of relevant systems before making public statements about them, in order to prevent misinformation from polluting the debate about the future of scholarly communication.