Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 7.004
Filtrar
1.
J Prof Nurs ; 37(5): 846-850, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34742513

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: In light of the increased research priorities set forth by both national and global funding sources, the goal of this project is to take a step towards deeper understanding of the responsibility of high-resource nurses conducting research in low-resource environments. A secondary goal is to understand the role of local collaboration partners in the development and implementation of research in their setting. DESIGN: A review of recent nursing research where the primary investigator was from a top-ranking U.S. university and the data collection took place in a low- or middle-income setting. METHODS: The literature was examined for two areas of interest: 1) the presence of local partners as authors, and 2) the role of local partners in development of the research question and study design. This review is through the lens of a collaborative work between an American nurse who conducted her doctoral research in sub-Saharan Africa and an African nurse who is a faculty member at a U.S. university. Ten nursing schools were reviewed for faculty involved in global health research. Ninety-nine faculty were reviewed for global interests and thirty-two were found to conduct research in low-resource settings. Inclusion criteria for publications: Authorship of nurse researcher; Data collection in an LMIC; Published between 2013 and 2019; Full-text available. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Systematic or literature review. RESULTS: Of the abstracts reviewed (N = 248), 141 publications were excluded due to duplicates and research design, for a total of 107 articles included in this review. Seventy-nine percent of publications (N = 85) included local authors, while 84% (N = 90) included local ethical approval. Of publications with local authors, 53% did not state the role played, 27% stated local authors were involved in study conception, 40% stated local authors were involved in data collection/analysis, and 35% stated local authors reviewed/approved the final manuscript. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of published studies did not state the role of their local partners. Data collection/analysis are the major roles reported in the literature. To design more effective local studies and promote positive health outcomes, international partners should be involved in all stages of the research process, particularly study conception, and their roles acknowledged in all publications.


Asunto(s)
Investigación en Enfermería , Autoria , Femenino , Humanos , Publicaciones , Facultades de Enfermería , Universidades
4.
BMJ ; 375: n2288, 2021 10 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34615650

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: Nine specialist and two large general medical journals. POPULATION: Authors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: first author's gender. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: last and corresponding authors' gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in "pre-pandemic" period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in "covid-19" and "non-covid-19" manuscripts during pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: Women have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic.


Asunto(s)
Autoria , Bibliometría , Investigación Biomédica , COVID-19 , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Manuscritos Médicos como Asunto , Escritura Médica , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Factores Sexuales , Factores de Tiempo
5.
Vet Radiol Ultrasound ; 62(5): 632, 2021 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34611969
7.
J Nepal Health Res Counc ; 19(2): 434-436, 2021 Sep 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34601547

RESUMEN

Good research writing and publication practices are important to identify, acknowledge, and generate awareness for ethical and credible science. Academic requirement for research thesis, and 'publish or perish' culture of academia for career evaluation of faculties contribute to authorship misconducts. The authorship criteria have been clearly outlined by international guidelines like International Committee of Medical Journals Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics, Council of Science Editors, World Association of Medical Editors. However, the practice of guide, co-guide as authors in students' thesis articles continues as inappropriate authorship. This is a topic which requires more debate in academia. Historical practices of academia, the power dynamics, and the guidelines of the journals vary and make this dispute even more complicated. In Nepal, we need to expand the discussion among stakeholders from academia, universities, monitoring bodies, ethical committees to journals for a consensus; to 'put to rest' this issue and be in line with the international guidelines. Keywords: Authorship guideline; journal article publication; research thesis guide co-guide supervisor.


Asunto(s)
Autoria , Investigadores , Humanos , Nepal , Estudiantes , Escritura
8.
BMJ Open ; 11(10): e046618, 2021 10 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34663651

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the temporal trend in gender ratios of first and last authors in the field of oncological research published in major general medical and oncology journals and examined the gender pattern in coauthorship. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective study in PubMed using the R package RISmed. We retrieved original research articles published in four general medical journals and six oncology specialty journals. These journals were selected based on their impact factors and popularity among oncologists. We identified the names of first and last authors from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2019. The gender of the authors was identified and validated using the Gender API database (https://gender-api.com/). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The percentages of first and last authors by gender and the gender ratios (male to female) and temporal trends in gender ratios of first and last authors were determined. RESULTS: We identified 34 624 research articles, in which 32 452 had the gender of both first and last authors identified. Among these 11 650 (33.6%) had women as the first author and 7908 (22.8%) as the last author, respectively. The proportion of female first and last authors increased from 26.6% and 16.2% in 2002, to 32.9% and 27.5% in 2019, respectively. However, the gender ratio (male to female) of first and last authors decreased by 1.5% and 2.6% per year, respectively, which were statistically significant (first author: incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.00; last author: IRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.99). Male first and last authorship was the most common combination. Male-female and female-female pairs increased by 2.0% and 5.0%, respectively (IRR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03 and IRR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.06, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The continued under-representation of women means that more efforts to address parity for advancement of women in academic oncology are needed.


Asunto(s)
Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Autoria , Bibliometría , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Oncología Médica , Estudios Retrospectivos
9.
Semin Pediatr Surg ; 30(5): 151097, 2021 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34635282

RESUMEN

Ethical considerations surrounding clinical research have been a topic of intense debate and discussion for many years, however, issues specific to the surgeon-scientist are rarely discussed. This article summarizes ethical issues pertinent to the surgeon-scientist including conflicts of interest, use of human biospecimens, data integrity, manuscript authorship, and mentorship for trainees. The methods include a review of the current and past literature on each of these topics with a brief overview of how it relates to the surgeon-scientist. Case examples are provided throughout to provide further discussion points related to the topic. The purpose of this review is to promote awareness of the ethical challenges that the surgeon-scientist faces when engaging in basic science research in order to spark discussion and encourage integrity and ethical behavior.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica/ética , Autoria , Humanos
10.
J Med Libr Assoc ; 109(3): 362-364, 2021 Jul 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34629963

RESUMEN

To help ensure that authors of articles published in the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) receive appropriate recognition for their contributions and to make individual author roles more transparent to readers, JMLA articles will begin including Author Contribution statements using the Contributor Role Taxonomy.


Asunto(s)
Bibliotecas Médicas , Asociaciones de Bibliotecas , Autoria , Publicaciones
11.
J Med Libr Assoc ; 109(3): 505-506, 2021 Jul 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34629983

RESUMEN

Invisible labor is a term used by labor economists to describe work that contributes, and is often even necessary, to the economy but largely goes unrecognized and unpaid. Despite the fact that systematic review searching is a significant task for many librarians and knowledge professionals, the search process can be considered a form of invisible labor because it often goes without recognition. This occurs sometimes through not granting authorship to the librarian who performed the intellectual contribution of search development and sometimes through a devaluing of the search process by the choice of language used to describe the search. By using the term search as a passive verb or noun, authors devalue the real intellectual labor involved in searching, which includes decisions related to search terms and combinations, database selection, and other search parameters. This commentary explores the context of how searching is described through the concept of invisible labor.


Asunto(s)
Almacenamiento y Recuperación de la Información , Bibliotecólogos , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Autoria , Bases de Datos Factuales , Humanos
12.
BMJ Glob Health ; 6(10)2021 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34666988

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Global surgery has recently gained prominence as an academic discipline within global health. Authorship inequity has been a consistent feature of global health publications, with over-representation of authors from high-income countries (HICs), and disenfranchisement of researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we investigated authorship demographics within recently published global surgery literature. METHODS: We performed a systematic analysis of author characteristics, including gender, seniority and institutional affiliation, for global surgery studies published between 2016 and 2020 and indexed in the PubMed database. We compared the distribution of author gender and seniority across studies related to different topics; between authors affiliated with HICs and LMICs; and across studies with different authorship networks. RESULTS: 1240 articles were included for analysis. Most authors were male (60%), affiliated only with HICs (51%) and of high seniority (55% were fully qualified specialist or generalist clinicians, Principal Investigators, or in senior leadership or management roles). The proportion of male authors increased with increasing seniority for last and middle authors. Studies related to Obstetrics and Gynaecology had similar numbers of male and female authors, whereas there were more male authors in studies related to surgery (69% male) and Anaesthesia and Critical care (65% male). Compared with HIC authors, LMIC authors had a lower proportion of female authors at every seniority grade. This gender gap among LMIC middle authors was reduced in studies where all authors were affiliated only with LMICs. CONCLUSION: Authorship disparities are evident within global surgery academia. Remedial actions to address the lack of authorship opportunities for LMIC authors and female authors are required.


Asunto(s)
Autoria , Países en Desarrollo , Demografía , Femenino , Salud Global , Humanos , Renta , Masculino
15.
BMJ Glob Health ; 6(10)2021 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34706882

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Authorship parasitism (ie, no authors affiliated with the country in which the study took place) occurs frequently in research conducted in low-income and middle-income countries, despite published recommendations defining authorship criteria. The objective was to compare characteristics of articles exhibiting authorship parasitism in sub-Saharan Africa to articles with author representation from sub-Saharan African countries. METHODS: A bibliometric review of articles indexed in PubMed published from January 2014 through December 2018 reporting research conducted in sub-Saharan Africa was performed. Author affiliations were assigned to countries based on regular expression algorithms. Choropleth maps and network diagrams were created to determine where authorship parasitism occurred, and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine associated factors. RESULTS: Of 32 061 articles, 14.8% (n=4754) demonstrated authorship parasitism, which was most common among studies from Somalia (n=175/233, 75.1%) and Sao Tome and Principe (n=20/28, 71.4%). Authors affiliated with USA and UK institutions were most commonly involved in articles exhibiting authorship parasitism. Authorship parasitism was more common in articles: published in North American journals (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.26, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.50) than in sub-Saharan African journals, reporting work from multiple sub-Saharan African countries (aOR 8.41, 95% CI 7.30 to 9.68) compared with work from upper-middle income sub-Saharan African countries, with <5 authors (aOR 14.46, 95% CI 12.81 to 16.35) than >10 authors, and was less common in articles published in French (aOR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.85) than English. CONCLUSIONS: Authorship parasitism was common in articles reporting research conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. There were reliable predictors of authorship parasitism. Investigators and institutions in high-income countries, as well as funding agencies and journals should promote research from sub-Saharan Africa, including its publication, in a collaborative and equitable manner.


Asunto(s)
Autoria , Países en Desarrollo , África del Sur del Sahara , Bibliometría , Humanos , Renta
16.
BMJ Open ; 11(10): e052351, 2021 10 21.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34675019

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To explore the awareness and practice of clinical research integrity among Japanese physicians. DESIGN: A nationwide cross-sectional study conducted in March 2020. SETTING: All hospitals in Japan. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians aged <65 years who work at hospitals participated in clinical research over the past 5 years. The sample was stratified according to geographical location and subspecialty, and 1100 physicians were proportionally selected. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge and awareness of research integrity. RESULTS: Among the 1100 participants, 587 (53%) had the experience of being the first author, 299 (27%) had been co-authors only and 214 (19%) had no authorship. A total of 1021 (93%) had experienced learning research integrity, and 555 (54%) became aware of research integrity. The experience of learning about research integrity was highest among those with first authorship (95%) and lowest among those without authorship (89%) (p=0.003). The majority of participants learnt about research integrity for passive reasons such as it being 'required by the institution' (57%) or it being 'required to obtain approval of institutional review board (IRB)' (30%). Potentially inappropriate research behaviours were observed in participants, with 11% indulging in copying and pasting for writing the paper, 11% for gifted authorship and 5.8% for the omission of IRB approval. Factors significantly associated with copying and pasting were being below 40 years old (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.05 to 3.26), being the first presenter (OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.57) or having passive reasons for learning research integrity (OR: 2.96; 95% CI: 1.57 to 5.59). Furthermore, gifted authorship was significantly associated with being a co-author only (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.87) and having passive reasons for learning about research integrity (OR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.12). CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians conducting clinical research have learnt about research integrity, but potentially inappropriate research behaviours are associated with passive reasons for learning.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , Médicos , Adulto , Autoria , Estudios Transversales , Humanos , Japón
18.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0257919, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34669713

RESUMEN

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unusually high submission rate of scholarly articles. Given that most academics were forced to work from home, the competing demands for familial duties may have penalized the scientific productivity of women. To test this hypothesis, we looked at submitted manuscripts and peer review activities for all Elsevier journals between February and May 2018-2020, including data on over 5 million authors and referees. Results showed that during the first wave of the pandemic, women submitted proportionally fewer manuscripts than men. This deficit was especially pronounced among more junior cohorts of women academics. The rate of the peer-review invitation acceptance showed a less pronounced gender pattern with women taking on a greater service responsibility for journals, except for health & medicine, the field where the impact of COVID-19 research has been more prominent. Our findings suggest that the first wave of the pandemic has created potentially cumulative advantages for men.


Asunto(s)
Autoria , Bibliometría , COVID-19/epidemiología , Pandemias , Revisión de la Investigación por Pares , SARS-CoV-2 , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Factores Sexuales
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...