Shapeshifters: Global South scholars and their tensions in border-crossing to Global North journals.

INTRODUCTION: Global South researchers struggle to publish in Global North journals, including journals dedicated to research on health professions education (HPE). As a consequence, Western perspectives and values dominate the international academic landscape of HPE. This study sought to understand Global South researchers' motivations and experiences of publishing in Global North journals. METHODS: This study used a hermeneutic phenomenological perspective. Unstructured interviews were conducted with 11 authors from 6 Global South countries. Interview transcripts were analysed through a process of familiarisation, identifying significant statements, formulating meanings, clustering themes, developing exhaustive descriptions, producing a fundamental structure and seeking verification. RESULTS: Participants described being motivated by local institutional expectations, to improve reputation, to meet Global North perceptions of quality and to draw attention to their Global South context. Participants described experiences where their work was deemed irrelevant to Global North audiences, they were unable to interpret rejections and had learnt to play the publishing game by attending to both local and global imperatives. These motivations and experiences revealed several practical, academic and transformational tensions that Global South authors faced. CONCLUSION: The tensions and negotiations encountered by Global South authors who publish in HPE journals reflect a 'border consciousness' whereby authors must shift consciousness, or become 'shapeshifters', inhabiting two or more worlds as they cross borders between the Global South and Global North conventions. There is an added burden and risk in performing this shapeshifting, as Global South authors stand astride the borders of two worlds without belonging fully to either.

Investigating the nature of open science practices across complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine journals: An audit.

BACKGROUND: Open science practices are implemented across many scientific fields to improve transparency and reproducibility in research. Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is a growing field that may benefit from adoption of open science practices. The efficacy and safety of CAIM practices, a popular concern with the field, can be validated or refuted through transparent and reliable research. Investigating open science practices across CAIM journals by using the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines can potentially promote open science practices across CAIM journals. The purpose of this study is to conduct an audit that compares and ranks open science practices adopted by CAIM journals against TOP guidelines laid out by the Center for Open Science (COS). METHODS: CAIM-specific journals with titles containing the words "complementary", "alternative" and/or "integrative" were included in this audit. Each of the eight TOP criteria were used to extract open science practices from each of the CAIM journals. Data was summarized by the TOP guideline and ranked using the TOP Factor to identify commonalities and differences in practices across the included journals. RESULTS: A total of 19 CAIM journals were included in this audit. Across all journals, the mean TOP Factor was 2.95 with a median score of 2. The findings of this study reveal high variability among the open science practices required by journals in this field. Four journals (21%) had a final TOP score of 0, while the total scores of the remaining 15 (79%) ranged from 1 to 8. CONCLUSION: While several studies have audited open science practices across discipline-specific journals, none have focused on CAIM journals. The results of this study indicate that CAIM journals provide minimal guidelines to encourage or require authors to adhere to open science practices and there is an opportunity to improve the use of open science practices in the field.

Research interest on dental sealant in dentistry based on the 100 most cited articles: bibliometric analysis.

The aim of this study was to identify and analyze the characteristics of the 100 most cited articles about dental sealants (DS) in dentistry. In September 2023, a search was performed in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS-CC) database. The following information was extracted from each article: number and density of citations, year of publication, authorship, journal, impact factor, keywords, study design, theme, continent, country, and institution. The citations of the WoS-CC were compared with those of the Scopus and Google Scholar databases. The VOSviewer software was used to generate collaborative networks. The number of citations ranged from 33 to 205. The articles were published between 1961 and 2016. Buonocore MG (7%) was the most prominent author among the most cited. The Journal of the American Dental Association was the most frequent journal (25%) and Journal of Dental Research (7.6) had the highest impact factor. Most studies had interventional (41%) and laboratory (31%) designs, mainly addressing DS effectiveness in the prevention and control of dental caries (86%). There was a predominance of publications from North America (46%) and the USA was the country with the highest number of articles (44%). The most frequent institutions were the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA) and the University of Rochester (USA) (6% each). "Retention" was the most frequent keyword. In conclusion, the 100 most cited articles were mostly interventional and laboratory studies, addressing the retention and efficacy of DS. Most of the articles were concentrated in North America and Europe, demonstrating a little collaboration from other continents.