Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 516
Filtrar
2.
Rev. Hosp. Ital. B. Aires (2004) ; 40(3): 151-155, sept. 2020. tab
Artigo em Espanhol | LILACS | ID: biblio-1129377

RESUMO

Para que una persona sea merecedora de la autoría de una investigación debe haber realizado alguna contribución académica sustancial para que esta pudiera llevarse a cabo y, además, ser capaz de dar cuenta públicamente de la integridad de sus procesos y sus resultados. Este artículo resume: 1) la matriz propuesta por L. W. Roberts para contribuir a definir las autorías durante las etapas iniciales de la investigación, 2) los criterios de autoría del Comité Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas para definir quiénes merecen dichos créditos y quiénes no, 3) la taxonomía de 14 roles propuesta por la Declaración CRediT para transparentar las tareas realizadas por cada una de las personas proclamadas autoras de una investigación biomédica y 4) las principales conductas que degradan la transparencia de las autorías. (AU)


For a person to deserve an investigation authorship he/she must have made some substantial academic contribution so that that research could be carried out and, in addition, must be able to publicly account for the integrity of their processes and their results. This article summarizes: 1) the matrix proposed by Roberts to help defining authorship during the initial stages of the investigation; 2) authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors to define who deserves such credits and who does not; 3) the 14-role taxonomy proposed by the CRediT Declaration to transparent the tasks performed by each of the proclaimed authors of a biomedical research; 4) the main behaviors that degrade the transparency of authorships. (AU)


Assuntos
Humanos , Pesquisa/normas , Autoria/normas , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Ética em Pesquisa , Avaliação da Pesquisa em Saúde , Ética na Publicação Científica , Publicações Científicas e Técnicas , Autoria e Coautoria na Publicação Científica , Comunicação Acadêmica/normas
6.
Niger Postgrad Med J ; 27(3): 250-258, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32687128

RESUMO

Research misconduct policy (RMP) is a legal document that shows the definitions of the various types of misconduct, describes the inquiry and investigation of allegations, and the appropriate penalties that should be imposed. The presence of the adopted RMP on the website of a university or postgraduate college is an indication of the level of commitment to promote the proper handling of misconduct cases. Perusal of the websites of top universities in developing countries revealed that many do not have RMP on their websites. The probable starting point for combating research misconduct at the national or institutional level is by acquisition of RMP. The purpose of this article is to propose a modern, structured and cost-effective RMP for universities and postgraduate colleges in developing countries. The bibliographic database, PubMed, was searched using the terms 'research misconduct' and 'research misconduct policy'. All relevant articles from the search and some RMPs of universities, national agencies and global health organisations available on the Internet were carefully studied. A formulated RMP, based on the Final Rule of the United States, Public Health Services Policies on Research Misconduct of 2005 and the Regulations of the University Grants Commission of India of 2018, is hereby presented. In the proposed RMP, plagiarism was stratified into four levels in ascending order of severity so that imposed penalties are commensurate with the seriousness of misconduct. The zero tolerance for plagiarism in the core work areas was adopted. The proposed RMP was designed to act as a template. It should be modified as required based on the prevailing local circumstances and made fit for purpose. Universities, postgraduate colleges and journals should have RMP on the homepage of their websites.


Assuntos
Autoria/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica/ética , Plágio , Editoração/ética , Pesquisadores/ética , Má Conduta Científica/ética , Academias e Institutos , Países em Desenvolvimento , Ética em Pesquisa , Humanos , Revisão por Pares/normas , Editoração/normas , Universidades
7.
J Surg Res ; 254: 242-246, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32480067

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Academic journals have adopted strict authorship guidelines to eliminate the addition of authors who have not met criteria, also known as "courtesy authors." We sought to analyze current perceptions, practices, and academic rank-related variations in courtesy authorship use among modern surgical journals. METHODS: Authors who published original research articles in 2014-2015 in eight surgical journals were surveyed and categorized as junior (JF) or senior faculty (SF) by years in practice. Responses regarding courtesy authorship perceptions and practices were analyzed. Subanalyses were performed based on journal impact factor. RESULTS: A total of 455 authors responded (34% JF versus 66% SF). SF were older (52 versus 39 y) and more predominantly male (80% versus 61%) versus JF. JF more frequently added a courtesy author to the index publication versus SF (23% versus 13%, P = 0.02), but had similar historical rates of adding courtesy authors (58% versus 51%, P = not significant) or being added as a courtesy author (29% versus 37%, P = not significant). JF felt courtesy authorship was more common in their practice and felt more pressure by superiors to add courtesy authors. Perceptions regarding the practice of courtesy authorship differed significantly, with 70% of JF feeling courtesy authorship use has not declined versus 45% of SF (P < 0.05). Both JF and SF cited courtesy authorship positives, including avoiding author conflicts (17% versus 33%, respectively) and increasing morale (25% versus 45%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Courtesy authorship use continues to be common among both JF and SF. However, perceptions about the benefits, harms, and pressures vary significantly by academic rank and with journal impact factor.


Assuntos
Autoria/normas , Cirurgia Geral , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino
8.
Radiología (Madr., Ed. impr.) ; 62(3): 180-187, mayo-jun. 2020. graf
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-194215

RESUMO

Hoy día, las posibilidades de investigación en el campo de la radiología son sorprendentemente amplias, accesibles a cualquier nivel. Gracias a los programas de gestión e informe, los archivos disponibles de imágenes y casos son enormes. Sin embargo, la presión asistencial y la falta de medios a veces limitan su avance. Una de las posibles vías de acceso son los programas de doctorado. La introducción del Plan Bolonia ha condicionado grandes cambios en la organización y requisitos necesarios para la tesis doctoral. Esto puede ser confuso para aquellos más alejados de la universidad; dado que la realización de la tesis con cierta frecuencia se plantea avanzada la vida profesional, su desconocimiento puede ser una dificultad añadida. El objetivo de este artículo es revisar la normativa básica que rige los programas de doctorado en la actualidad, así como aportar algunos consejos útiles para los posibles futuros doctorandos


Nowadays, there are, surprisingly, many opportunities for research in the field of radiology, and these are accessible at any level. Thanks to radiological information systems and picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), a huge number of images and cases are available. Nevertheless, the daily workload and the lack of resources sometimes limit the advance of radiologic research. One of the routes of access is doctoral programs. The Bologna process has resulted in significant changes in the organization and in the prerequisites for doctoral theses. The new situation can be confusing for those who are further removed from the university. Given that many radiologists undertake their doctoral theses once their careers are well established, unfamiliarity with the new system can represent an added difficulty. This article aims to review the basic regulations that govern doctoral programs nowadays and to provide some useful advice for potential doctoral students


Assuntos
Humanos , Dissertações Acadêmicas como Assunto/normas , Radiologia/educação , Radiologia/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Autoria/normas
9.
BMJ ; 369: m2081, 2020 06 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32586791

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To determine the presence of a set of pre-specified traditional and non-traditional criteria used to assess scientists for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences among universities worldwide. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: International sample of universities. PARTICIPANTS: 170 randomly selected universities from the Leiden ranking of world universities list. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Presence of five traditional (for example, number of publications) and seven non-traditional (for example, data sharing) criteria in guidelines for assessing assistant professors, associate professors, and professors and the granting of tenure in institutions with biomedical faculties. RESULTS: A total of 146 institutions had faculties of biomedical sciences, and 92 had eligible guidelines available for review. Traditional criteria of peer reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact factor, grant funding, and national or international reputation were mentioned in 95% (n=87), 37% (34), 28% (26), 67% (62), and 48% (44) of the guidelines, respectively. Conversely, among non-traditional criteria, only citations (any mention in 26%; n=24) and accommodations for employment leave (37%; 34) were relatively commonly mentioned. Mention of alternative metrics for sharing research (3%; n=3) and data sharing (1%; 1) was rare, and three criteria (publishing in open access mediums, registering research, and adhering to reporting guidelines) were not found in any guidelines reviewed. Among guidelines for assessing promotion to full professor, traditional criteria were more commonly reported than non-traditional criteria (traditional criteria 54.2%, non-traditional items 9.5%; mean difference 44.8%, 95% confidence interval 39.6% to 50.0%; P=0.001). Notable differences were observed across continents in whether guidelines were accessible (Australia 100% (6/6), North America 97% (28/29), Europe 50% (27/54), Asia 58% (29/50), South America 17% (1/6)), with more subtle differences in the use of specific criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the evaluation of scientists emphasises traditional criteria as opposed to non-traditional criteria. This may reinforce research practices that are known to be problematic while insufficiently supporting the conduct of better quality research and open science. Institutions should consider incentivising non-traditional criteria. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/26ucp/?view_only=b80d2bc7416543639f577c1b8f756e44).


Assuntos
Autoria/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica , Editoração/normas , Universidades , Mobilidade Ocupacional , Estudos Transversais , Coleta de Dados , Docentes , Humanos , Política Organizacional
11.
An. sist. sanit. Navar ; 43(1): 35-41, ene.-abr. 2020. tab
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-193675

RESUMO

FUNDAMENTO: Analizar las características de los vídeos de YouTube en castellano sobre la vacuna antigripal. MÉTODO: En abril de 2019 se realizó una búsqueda en YouTube usando el término vacuna gripe. Se estudió la asociación del tipo de autoría y del país de publicación con el resto de variables (tono del mensaje, tipo de publicación, recomendaciones de vacunación según el Ministerio de Sanidad español, entre otras) mediante análisis univariante y un modelo de regresión logística múltiple. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 208 vídeos, el 26% publicados desde España y el 25% desde México; el 47,1% eran noticias, el 51,4% elaborados por canales de televisión, y el 79,8% apoyaban el uso de la vacuna antigripal (tono positivo). El contenido más frecuente fue considerar la vacuna antigripal como el método más eficaz de prevención (64,4%) y la recomendación de vacunar a partir de los 65 años (43,3%). La autoría por profesionales sanitarios se relacionó con un tono positivo hacia la vacunación (OR: 2,91; IC95%: 1,12-7,53; p = 0,028), y el país de publicación (España) con un tono no positivo (OR: 0,31; IC95%: 0,15-0,65; p = 0,002). CONCLUSIONES: La información en YouTube sobre la vacuna antigripal no suele ser muy completa, y difiere según autoría y país de publicación. Por tanto, los profesionales sanitarios en España deberían publicar información provacunación según las recomendaciones del Ministerio de Sanidad, y se debería promocionar la consulta de dichos vídeos entre los usuarios en España que buscan información fiable sobre esta vacuna en YouTube


BACKGROUND: To analyze the characteristics of YouTube videos in Spanish about the influenza vaccine. METHODS: In April 2019, a search was conducted on YouTube with the term vacuna gripe. We studied the association between the type of author, and country of publication, and the rest of the variables (tone of the message, type of publication, and vaccination recommendations according to the Spanish Ministry of Health, among others) with univariate analysis and a multiple logistic regression model. RESULTS: In total, 208 videos were assessed; 51.0% had been published from Spain and Mexico, and 79.8% of the videos supported the use of influenza vaccines. The main topics discussed in the videos were whether the vaccine should be considered the most effective method to prevent influenza (64.4%) and recommendations concerning the vaccination of people over 65 years old (43.3%). The variables type of authorship (healthcare professionals) and country of publication (Spain) were associated with a positive attitude towards vaccination (OR: 2.91; 95%CI: 1.12-7.53 and OR: 0.31; 95%CI: 0.15-0.65, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The existing information on YouTube about the influenza vaccine is not generally very complete, and it varies depending on the authorship of the videos and the country of publication. It would be advisable for healthcare professionals to publish videos promoting vaccination based on the guidelines from the Spanish Ministry of Health, and it is necessary to promote those videos for Spanish users who search for reliable information about this vaccine on YouTube


Assuntos
Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Vacinas contra Influenza , Recursos Audiovisuais , Internet , Mídias Sociais , Pessoal de Saúde/normas , Autoria/normas , Estudos Transversais , Análise Multivariada
12.
J Am Assoc Nurse Pract ; 32(4): 285-286, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32251209
14.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 56(3)2020 Mar 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32178434

RESUMO

Controversies related to the concept and practice of responsible authorship and its misuse have been among the most prominent issues discussed in the recent literature on research integrity. Therefore, this paper aims to address the factors that lead to two major types of unethical authorship, namely, honorary and ghost authorship. It also highlights negative consequences of authorship misuse and provides a critical analysis of different authorship guidelines, including a recent debate on the amendments of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship definition. Empirical studies revealed that honorary authorship was the most prevalent deviation from the responsible authorship standards. Three different modalities of honorary authorship were distinguished: gift authorship, guest authorship, and coercive authorship. Prevalence of authorship misuse worldwide and in Europe was alarmingly high, covering approximately one third of all scientific publications. No significant differences were reported in authorship misuse between different health research disciplines. The studies conducted in North America highlighted the most effective means to cope with unethical authorship. These were training in publishing ethics, clear authorship policies developed by medical schools, and explicit compliance with the authorship criteria required by the medical journals. In conclusion, more empirical research is needed to raise awareness of the high prevalence of authorship misuse among scientists. Research integrity training courses, including publication ethics and authorship issues should be integrated into the curricula for students and young researchers in medical schools. Last but not least, further discussion on responsible authorship criteria and practice should be initiated.


Assuntos
Autoria/normas , Editoração/ética , Humanos , Editoração/normas
18.
Am J Med Sci ; 360(5): 511-516, 2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31955814

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Women are underrepresented in medicine despite increases in the percentage of female physicians. It is unknown if academic productivity contributes to these differences. We sought to determine whether gender disparity exists in peer-reviewed literature authorship in the United States from 2000 to 2017. METHODS: Medical and surgical peer-reviewed research articles from the United States were retrospectively reviewed using PubMed from 2000 to 2017. Manuscripts were randomly selected within 4 different time periods: 2000-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015 and 2016-2017. The gender of the first and last authors was determined and the journal's impact factor recorded. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) databases were used to determine the percent of female residents, attendings and academic leadership positions. Primary outcome was the prevalence of female authors in peer-reviewed literature. Secondary aims were differences in disparity in medical versus surgical specialties, differences in publications' impact factor among gender and the association between gender and mentoring. RESULTS: Within 1,120 articles reviewed, 31.6% of first authors and 19.4% of last authors were women. Female first and last authors increased over time and authorship was proportional to the number of women in the studied specialties at that specific time period (P = 0.78). There was no difference in the journal's impact factors between gender (P = 0.64). On subgroup analysis of medical and surgical subspecialties, results remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Women publish research at a rate proportional to the number of academic female physicians. Disparities in leadership roles are unlikely explained by differences in publications. While gender disparities in medicine have improved, substantial disparities in leadership persist.


Assuntos
Autoria , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/tendências , Médicas/tendências , Sexismo/tendências , Autoria/normas , Feminino , Humanos , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/normas , Médicas/normas , Estudos Retrospectivos , Sexismo/prevenção & controle
19.
Int J Psychol ; 55(4): 684-694, 2020 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31782157

RESUMO

Academic psychology in the USA is a gender success story in terms of overturning its early male dominance but there are still relatively few senior female psychology researchers. To assess whether there are gender differences in citation impact that might help to explain either of these trends, this study investigates psychology articles since 1996. Seven out of eight Scopus psychology categories had a majority of female first-authored journal articles by 2018. From regression analyses of first and last author gender and team size, female first authors associate with a slightly higher average citation impact, but extra authors have a 10 times stronger association with higher average citation impact. Last author gender has little association with citation impact. Female first authors are more likely to be in larger teams and if team size is attributed to the first author's work, then their apparent influence of female first authors on citation impact doubles. While gender differences in average citation impact are too small to account for gender-related trends in academic psychology, they warn that male-dominated citation-based ranking lists of psychologists do not reflect the state of psychology research today.


Assuntos
Autoria/normas , Psicologia/métodos , Editoração/normas , Feminino , História do Século XX , História do Século XXI , Humanos , Masculino
20.
Gac Med Mex ; 155(6): 635-640, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31787766

RESUMO

One of the skills that is more in need to be strengthened in the medical area is the dissemination of knowledge. For this reason, it is necessary to provide elements that promote training in scientific writing. Identifying the most common problems when writing medical original articles for publication will provide useful resources that should contribute to the generation of knowledge. There are multiple reasons that intervene for an original article not to be accepted in a medical journal, among which failure to follow instructions for authors and methodological, design and structural problems stand out. However, the aspect that most influences and that is seldom pointed out, is inadequate writing of research manuscripts, which becomes evident in the different sections that make up manuscripts. All the above-mentioned factors are the responsibility of the authors, and therefore must be taken care of properly. The purpose of this article is to identify the most common mistakes when writing original medical manuscripts, which, if avoided, will increase the possibility for research papers to be accepted for publication.


Assuntos
Autoria/normas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Redação/normas , Humanos , Disseminação de Informação/métodos , Editoração/normas
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA