Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 759
Filtrar
1.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 10(1): 10, 2021 01 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33436062

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Translating research into practice is a central priority within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap. The underlying aim of the NIH Roadmap is to accelerate the movement of scientific findings into practical health care provisions through translational research. MAIN TEXT: Despite the advances in health sciences, emerging infectious diseases have become more frequent in recent decades. Furthermore, emerging and reemerging pathogens have led to several global public health challenges. A question, and to an extent a concern, arises from this: Why our health care system is experiencing several challenges in encountering the coronavirus outbreak, despite the ever-growing advances in sciences, and the exponential rise in the number of published articles in the first quartile journals and even the ones among the top 1%? CONCLUSION: Two responses could be potentially provided to the above question: First, there seems to be a significant gap between our theoretical knowledge and practice. And second that many scholars and scientists publish papers only to have a longer list of publications, and therefore publishing is viewed as a personal objective, rather than for improving communities' public health.


Assuntos
/virologia , Publicações/estatística & dados numéricos , /fisiologia , Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Políticas , Publicações/normas , Editoração/normas , Editoração/estatística & dados numéricos , /genética
3.
PLoS One ; 15(11): e0241826, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33152034

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A debate about the scientific quality of COVID-19 themed research has emerged. We explored whether the quality of evidence of COVID-19 publications is lower when compared to nonCOVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals. METHODS: We searched the PubMed Database from March 12 to April 12, 2020 and identified 559 publications in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet which were divided into COVID-19 (cases, n = 204) and nonCOVID-19 (controls, n = 355) associated content. After exclusion of secondary, unauthored, response letters and non-matching article types, 155 COVID-19 publications (including 13 original articles) and 130 nonCOVID-19 publications (including 52 original articles) were included in the comparative analysis. The hierarchical level of evidence was determined for each publication included and compared between cases and controls as the main outcome. A quantitative scoring of quality was carried out for the subgroup of original articles. The numbers of authors and citation rates were also compared between groups. RESULTS: The 130 nonCOVID-19 publications were associated with higher levels of evidence on the level of evidence pyramid, with a strong association measure (Cramer's V: 0.452, P <0.001). The 155 COVID-19 publications were 186-fold more likely to be of lower evidence (95% confidence interval [CI] for odds ratio, 7.0-47; P <0.001). The quantitative quality score (maximum possible score, 28) was significantly different in favor of nonCOVID-19 (mean difference, 11.1; 95% CI, 8.5-13.7; P <0.001). There was a significant difference in the early citation rate of the original articles that favored the COVID-19 original articles (median [interquartile range], 45 [30-244] vs. 2 [1-4] citations; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the quality of COVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals is below the quality average of these journals. These findings need to be verified at a later stage of the pandemic.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus , Escrita Médica , Pandemias , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Pneumonia Viral , Publicações/normas
4.
Gastroenterol. hepatol. (Ed. impr.) ; 43(9): 540-550, nov. 2020.
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-ET2-7602

RESUMO

Este artículo tiene como objetivo compartir nuestra experiencia con los que se plantean dedicarse a investigar. Así, se enumeran las características, cualidades o competencias que, a nuestro criterio, un buen investigador debería cumplir, y por tanto las claves que pueden ayudarle a lograr una carrera investigadora exitosa. La intención del presente artículo no es enumerar sin más una serie de recomendaciones teóricas, sino compartir algunas sugerencias personales basadas en nuestra experiencia y, por tanto, de índole eminentemente práctica. Las cualidades fundamentales que se tratarán son: Ética y honestidad. Curiosidad, pasión, entusiasmo y motivación. Persistencia, dedicación y disciplina. Ambición y liderazgo. Compromiso y responsabilidad. Organización y planificación. Adquirir conocimientos sobre metodología de la investigación. Actitud crítica y positiva ante las dificultades y el fracaso. Priorización de objetivos y gestión del tiempo. La importancia de un buen mentor. Establecimiento de una red de colaboradores y trabajo en equipo. Mantener un equilibrio entre actividad clínica e investigadora. Combinar investigación pública y privada. Equilibrio entre la vida profesional y personal. Y, finalmente, humildad, generosidad y agradecimiento. La investigación representa un pilar fundamental de la actividad médica y es evidente que la mayor calidad asistencial surge de la integración de una práctica clínica y una actividad investigadora excelentes. Con la filosofía de que la mayoría de las cualidades para desarrollar una actividad investigadora de excelencia dependen de la actitud, y pueden aprenderse, desarrollarse y mejorarse, en el presente manuscrito compartimos con el lector una serie de recomendaciones que consideramos esenciales para ser un buen investigador


This article aims to share our experience with those who consider dedicating themselves to research. In this way, the characteristics, qualities or competences that, in our opinion, a good researcher should fulfill are listed, and therefore the keys that can help you achieve a successful research career. The intention of this article is not to simply list a series of theoretical recommendations but to share some personal suggestions based on our experience and, therefore, of an eminently practical nature. The fundamental qualities to be discussed are: Ethics and honesty. Curiosity, passion, enthusiasm and motivation. Persistence, dedication and discipline. Ambition and leadership. Compromise and responsibility. Organization and planning. Acquire knowledge of research methodology. Critical and positive attitude towards difficulties and failure. Prioritization of objectives and time management. The importance of a good mentor. Establishment of a network of collaborators and teamwork. Maintain a balance between clinical and research activity. Combine public and private investigation. Balance between professional and personal life. And, finally, humility, generosity and thanks. Research represents a fundamental pillar of medical activity and it is evident that the highest quality of care arises from the integration of excellent clinical practice and research activity. With the philosophy that most of the qualities to develop an excellent research activity depend on attitude, and can be learned, developed and improved, in this manuscript we share with the reader a series of recommendations that we consider essential to be a good researcher


Assuntos
Humanos , Pesquisadores/normas , Publicações/normas , Ciência , Guias como Assunto/normas , Mentores , Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa/organização & administração , Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa/normas , Conhecimento , Motivação
5.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(44): e22885, 2020 Oct 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33126338

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Publications regarding the 100 top-cited articles in a given discipline are common, but studies reporting the association between article topics and their citations are lacking. Whether or not reviews and original articles have a higher impact factor than case reports is a point for verification in this study. In addition, article topics that can be used for predicting citations have not been analyzed. Thus, this study aims to METHODS:: We searched PubMed Central and downloaded 100 top-cited abstracts in the journal Medicine (Baltimore) since 2011. Four article types and 7 topic categories (denoted by MeSH terms) were extracted from abstracts. Contributors to these 100 top-cited articles were analyzed. Social network analysis and Sankey diagram analysis were performed to identify influential article types and topic categories. MeSH terms were applied to predict the number of article citations. We then examined the prediction power with the correlation coefficients between MeSH weights and article citations. RESULTS: The citation counts for the 100 articles ranged from 24 to 127, with an average of 39.1 citations. The most frequent article types were journal articles (82%) and comparative studies (10%), and the most frequent topics were epidemiology (48%) and blood and immunology (36%). The most productive countries were the United States (24%) and China (23%). The most cited article (PDID = 27258521) with a count of 135 was written by Dr Shang from Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University (China) in 2016. MeSH terms were evident in the prediction power of the number of article citations (correlation coefficients  = 0.49, t = 5.62). CONCLUSION: The breakthrough was made by developing dashboards showing the overall concept of the 100 top-cited articles using the Sankey diagram. MeSH terms can be used for predicting article citations. Analyzing the 100 top-cited articles could help future academic pursuits and applications in other academic disciplines.


Assuntos
Bibliometria , Fator de Impacto de Revistas , Medical Subject Headings , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/tendências , Publicações , Previsões , Humanos , Redes Sociais Online , PubMed , Publicações/classificação , Publicações/normas , Publicações/estatística & dados numéricos
6.
PLoS Biol ; 18(9): e3000860, 2020 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32960891

RESUMO

Engagement with scientific manuscripts is frequently facilitated by Twitter and other social media platforms. As such, the demographics of a paper's social media audience provide a wealth of information about how scholarly research is transmitted, consumed, and interpreted by online communities. By paying attention to public perceptions of their publications, scientists can learn whether their research is stimulating positive scholarly and public thought. They can also become aware of potentially negative patterns of interest from groups that misinterpret their work in harmful ways, either willfully or unintentionally, and devise strategies for altering their messaging to mitigate these impacts. In this study, we collected 331,696 Twitter posts referencing 1,800 highly tweeted bioRxiv preprints and leveraged topic modeling to infer the characteristics of various communities engaging with each preprint on Twitter. We agnostically learned the characteristics of these audience sectors from keywords each user's followers provide in their Twitter biographies. We estimate that 96% of the preprints analyzed are dominated by academic audiences on Twitter, suggesting that social media attention does not always correspond to greater public exposure. We further demonstrate how our audience segmentation method can quantify the level of interest from nonspecialist audience sectors such as mental health advocates, dog lovers, video game developers, vegans, bitcoin investors, conspiracy theorists, journalists, religious groups, and political constituencies. Surprisingly, we also found that 10% of the preprints analyzed have sizable (>5%) audience sectors that are associated with right-wing white nationalist communities. Although none of these preprints appear to intentionally espouse any right-wing extremist messages, cases exist in which extremist appropriation comprises more than 50% of the tweets referencing a given preprint. These results present unique opportunities for improving and contextualizing the public discourse surrounding scientific research.


Assuntos
Bases de Dados como Assunto , Publicações , Ciência , Mudança Social , Mídias Sociais , Academias e Institutos/organização & administração , Academias e Institutos/normas , Academias e Institutos/estatística & dados numéricos , Acesso à Informação , Bases de Dados como Assunto/organização & administração , Bases de Dados como Assunto/normas , Bases de Dados como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Processamento Eletrônico de Dados/organização & administração , Processamento Eletrônico de Dados/normas , Processamento Eletrônico de Dados/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Competência em Informação , Internet/organização & administração , Internet/normas , Internet/estatística & dados numéricos , Ativismo Político , Publicações/classificação , Publicações/normas , Publicações/estatística & dados numéricos , Publicações/provisão & distribução , Ciência/organização & administração , Ciência/normas , Ciência/estatística & dados numéricos , Mídias Sociais/organização & administração , Mídias Sociais/normas , Mídias Sociais/estatística & dados numéricos
8.
Clín. salud ; 31(2): 77-83, jul. 2020. tab, ilus
Artigo em Inglês | IBECS | ID: ibc-191918

RESUMO

This paper aims to provide a practical, summarized, and clear guide of steps to carry out a systematic review and is aimed at researchers in the field of Health Sciences. The review process runs from the initial questioning to the final report, providing useful information on tools available at each stage. Systematic review and meta-analysis are currently the evidence synthesis tools of the highest level of scientific quality. They are in themselves a secondary research methodology, whose objective is to locate, evaluate, and synthesize the best evidence by selecting original papers or quality primary publications. The procedure to achieve the objective is presented as a sequential and systematized process, in stages, following the transparency principle, so as to ensure its replicability


Este trabajo pretende proporcionar una guía práctica, resumida y clara de los pasos para llevar a cabo una revisión sistemática y está dirigido a los investigadores del ámbito de las ciencias de la salud. El proceso de revisión se desarrolla desde el planteamiento inicial de la pregunta hasta la elaboración del informe final, proporcionando información útil sobre herramientas disponibles en cada etapa. La revisión sistemática y el metaanálisis son actualmente las herramientas de síntesis de evidencia de más alto nivel de calidad científica. Constituyen en sí mismas una metodología de investigación secundaria, cuyo objetivo es localizar, valorar y sintetizar la mejor evidencia seleccionando los trabajos originales o publicaciones primarias de calidad. El procedimiento para alcanzar el objetivo se plantea como un proceso secuencial y sistematizado, por etapas, siguiendo el principio de transparencia, de modo que se asegure su replicabilidad


Assuntos
Humanos , Ciências da Saúde , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Manuscritos como Assunto , Publicações/normas
9.
PLoS One ; 15(5): e0230961, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32374737

RESUMO

Is it appropriate for scientists to engage in political advocacy? Some political critics of scientists argue that scientists have become partisan political actors with self-serving financial agendas. However, most scientists strongly reject this view. While social scientists have explored the effects of science politicization on public trust in science, little empirical work directly examines the drivers of scientists' interest in and willingness to engage in political advocacy. Using a natural experiment involving the U.S. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (NSF-GRF), we causally estimate for the first time whether scientists who have received federal science funding are more likely to engage in both science-related and non-science-related political behaviors. Comparing otherwise similar individuals who received or did not receive NSF support, we find that scientists' preferences for political advocacy are not shaped by receiving government benefits. Government funding did not impact scientists' support of the 2017 March for Science nor did it shape the likelihood that scientists donated to either Republican or Democratic political groups. Our results offer empirical evidence that scientists' political behaviors are not motivated by self-serving financial agendas. They also highlight the limited capacity of even generous government support programs to increase civic participation by their beneficiaries.


Assuntos
Comportamento/ética , Financiamento Governamental , Pessoal de Laboratório/ética , Política , Política Ambiental/economia , Política Ambiental/legislação & jurisprudência , Financiamento Governamental/ética , Financiamento Governamental/normas , Programas Governamentais/economia , Programas Governamentais/ética , Programas Governamentais/normas , Política de Saúde/economia , Política de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Pessoal de Laboratório/economia , Pessoal de Laboratório/psicologia , Má Conduta Profissional/ética , Política Pública , Setor Público/ética , Publicações/economia , Publicações/ética , Publicações/legislação & jurisprudência , Publicações/normas , Ciência/economia , Ciência/ética , Confiança , Estados Unidos
10.
Adv Exp Med Biol ; 1194: 489-492, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32468565

RESUMO

Taking as a starting point that the only proving method in mathematics is logic, as, for example, is used in the logical setup of the paper (arguments, i.e., premises leading to conclusions, logical inferences), we describe a new tool for analysis and validation of publications in the field of bioinformatics. In striking contrast to the abundance of statistical programs and packages available to bioinformatics researchers, no such logical tool is available to them. Therefore the creation of such a tool is necessary; a form of expert system that may do the following procedures: Evaluate papers giving a score of logical consistency and completeness (i.e., how many conclusions were investigated in comparison to all possible conclusions based on the set of premises used by the researchers). Help researchers and academics better plan their protocols by automating the process of analysis of the premises given. Be able to locate and analyze arguments directly from the text of the scientific paper, from certain parts of it (e.g., the "conclusions" section, or even from the whole text, based on advanced AI algorithms). Provide a new standard for future publications in any form and, later, in any scientific field.


Assuntos
Biologia Computacional , Lógica , Publicações , Ciência , Algoritmos , Sistemas Especialistas , Publicações/normas , Publicações/estatística & dados numéricos , Ciência/métodos
12.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(15): e19760, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32282738

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In recent years, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (MCRPC) and studies related to MCRPC have drawn global attention. The main objective of this bibliometric study was to provide an overview of MCRPC, explore clusters and trends in research and investigate the future direction of MCRPC research. METHODS: A total of 4089 publications published between 1979 and 2018 were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database. Different aspects of MCRPC research, including the countries/territories, institutions, journals, authors, research areas, funding agencies and author keywords, were analyzed. RESULTS: The number of annual MCRPC publications increased rapidly after 2010. American researchers played a vital role in this increase, as they published the most publications. The most productive institution was Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. De Bono, JS (the United Kingdom [UK]) and Scher, HI (the United States of America [USA]) were the two most productive authors. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded the largest number of published papers. Analyses of keywords suggested that therapies (abiraterone, enzalutamide, etc.) would attract global attention after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. CONCLUSIONS: Developed countries, especially the USA, were the leading nations for MCRPC research because of their abundant funding and frequent international collaborations. Therapy was one of the most vital aspects of MCRPC research. Therapies targeting DNA repair or the androgen receptor (AR) signing pathway and new therapies especially prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based radioligand therapy (RLT) would be the next focus of MCRPC research.


Assuntos
Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/secundário , Publicações/normas , United States Food and Drug Administration/organização & administração , Androstenos/uso terapêutico , Bibliometria , Neoplasias Ósseas/secundário , Reparo do DNA/efeitos dos fármacos , Humanos , Masculino , Metástase Neoplásica , Feniltioidantoína/análogos & derivados , Feniltioidantoína/uso terapêutico , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangue , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/patologia , Publicações/tendências , Receptores Androgênicos/efeitos dos fármacos , Receptores Androgênicos/genética , Reino Unido/epidemiologia , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
13.
Health Info Libr J ; 37(2): 163-167, 2020 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32243699

RESUMO

Academic librarians with teaching responsibility have traditionally delivered training in discovering and organising information. However, in recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on supporting researchers through all stages of the research lifecycle. While librarians are ideally placed to provide training in writing for publication and presentation of research, very few in the United Kingdom appear to be doing so. However, there are clear benefits to teaching these subjects. Based on feedback from faculty on user needs, the University of Cambridge Medical Library's training programme was expanded to include training and support in the publication and presentation of research outputs. This article recounts the process by which the new courses were developed, and the techniques used by the library's teaching staff to gain understanding of conventions and requirements of forms of written communication with which they were unfamiliar. It also evaluates the impact of the new courses, discusses next steps and provides advice for other librarians wishing to develop similar courses. D.I.


Assuntos
Bibliotecários/estatística & dados numéricos , Publicações/normas , Ensino/educação , Redação/normas , Humanos , Bibliotecas Médicas , Publicações/tendências , Ensino/tendências , Reino Unido
15.
West J Emerg Med ; 21(2): 295-303, 2020 Feb 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32191186

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Promoting emergency medicine (EM) clinical trials research remains a priority. To characterize the status of clinical EM research, this study assessed trial quality, funding source, and publication of EM clinical trials and compared EM and non-EM trials on these key metrics. We also examined the volume of EM trials and their subspecialty areas. METHODS: We abstracted data from ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2000 - September 2013) and used individual study National Clinical Trial numbers to identify published trials (January 2007 - September 2016). We used descriptive statistics and chi-square tests to examine study characteristics by EM and non-EM status, and Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests to compare time to publication of completed EM and non-EM studies. RESULTS: We found 638 interventional EM trials and 59,512 non-EM interventional trials conducted in the United States between February 2000 and September 2013, registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. EM studies were significantly less likely than non-EM studies to be National Institutes of Health-funded or to evaluate a drug or biologic. However, EM studies had significantly larger sample sizes, and were significantly more likely to use randomization and blinding. Overall, 34.3% of EM and 26.0% of non-EM studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. By subspecialty, more EM trials concerned medical/surgical and psychiatric/neurological conditions than trauma. CONCLUSION: Although EM studies were less likely to have received federal or industry funding, and the EM portfolio consisted of only 638 trials over the 14-year study period, the quality of EM trials surpassed that of non-EM trials, based on indices such as randomization and blinding. This novel finding bodes well for the future of clinical EM research, as does the higher proportion of published EM than non-EM trials. Our study also revealed that trauma studies were under-represented among EM studies. Periodic assessment of EM trials with the metrics used here could provide an informative and valuable longitudinal view of progress in clinical EM research.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/normas , Medicina de Emergência , Publicações/normas , Projetos de Pesquisa , Humanos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Estados Unidos
16.
Rev Med Interne ; 41(5): 330-334, 2020 May.
Artigo em Francês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32107052

RESUMO

Scientific misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) and detrimental research practices (selective reporting of data, inappropriate citation practice, ghostwriting) are admitted respectively by 2 % and 33 % of researchers. The consequences of scientific misconduct and detrimental research practices are disastrous, both for the doctors, who are the most affected researchers in view of the number of retracted articles, and for the patients, victims of false information that may have health consequences. In order to fight against the causes (promotion of doctors and allocation of resources to clinical wards and laboratories on purely quantitative research criteria, lack of training in scientific integrity in medical studies, heterogenous quality of reviewing, legal impunity), there are legislative, academic, technological and editorial solutions, but radical and urgent cultural change is needed first.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/ética , Má Conduta Científica , Pesquisa Biomédica/história , Pesquisa Biomédica/legislação & jurisprudência , Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Decepção , Políticas Editoriais , Europa (Continente) , França , Fraude/ética , Fraude/história , Fraude/legislação & jurisprudência , História do Século XX , História do Século XXI , Humanos , Legislação como Assunto , Plágio , Publicações/história , Publicações/legislação & jurisprudência , Publicações/normas , Má Conduta Científica/classificação , Má Conduta Científica/história , Má Conduta Científica/legislação & jurisprudência
17.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976) ; 45(4): 275-283, 2020 Feb 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31999653

RESUMO

STUDY DESIGN: A bibliometric analysis. OBJECTIVE: To identify and analyze the 100 top-cited articles on spinal deformity. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The nature of spinal deformity leads to the complexity of its treatment. There is a scarcity of guidelines for the treatment of spinal deformity despite of the growing literature. So it is crucial to discern researches with higher impact and quality. METHODS: A keyword search using the Thomson Reuters Web of Science was conducted to select articles relevant to spinal deformity. The 100 top-cited articles were identified based on titles and abstracts, and then analyzed. RESULTS: The citation count for the final 100 articles ranged from 154 to 775, with an average of 243.0 citations. Most studies were published in the journal Spine (49/100). The most productive publication time was from 2000 to 2009. The natural history of scoliosis was the most frequent topic (10 articles), followed by pedicle screw instrumentation (8), outcome of nonoperative treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) (8), health-related quality of life (7), relationship between sagittal parameters and clinical symptoms (7), and complications of surgical treatment (7). Despite AIS was the most common deformity, the top two most frequently cited articles were all about adult spinal deformity, both describing the correlation between sagittal parameters and symptoms. CONCLUSION: The current study attempted to develop a resource with detailed information on 100 top-cited articles on spinal deformity. It demonstrated the essential advances in spinal deformity. Although the most common spinal deformity is AIS, the adult spinal deformity is of greater impact. These insights into priorities and trends of the researches could help future academic pursuits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.


Assuntos
Bibliometria , Publicações/estatística & dados numéricos , Curvaturas da Coluna Vertebral , Adolescente , Humanos , Publicações/normas
18.
J Med Libr Assoc ; 108(1): 98-105, 2020 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31897057

RESUMO

Background: This case report describes a collaborative effort between a health sciences librarian and an instructional designer to create and implement a writing professional development experience called the Scholarship Circle. It was aimed at increasing scholarly productivity by junior and nontenure-track faculty in a college of nursing. Case Presentation: The Scholarship Circle activities were carried out in a synchronous and an asynchronous online environment over ten weeks and included weekly lectures from nurse-scholars, discussions and peer reviews, and writing support from the librarian. The Scholarship Circle designers surveyed participants before and after the course to explore faculty perceptions and conducted a bibliographic analysis to gauge increases in scholarly productivity. Conclusions: While both tenure-track and nontenure-track faculty perceived lack of time as a significant barrier to publication, only nontenure-track faculty perceived lack of writing experience and getting started as significant obstacles. In the two years following the Scholarship Circle, faculty with doctor of philosophy and doctor of education degrees produced the greatest number of scholarly publications, whereas faculty with other degrees demonstrated a modest increase in scholarship. Online writing support programs have the potential to positively impact scholarly productivity for junior and nontenure-track faculty, especially if they emphasize time management for writing, confidence-building strategies, and a flexible format that allows peer review and collaboration as well as participation by seasoned scholars and remote participants. Partnership between health sciences librarians and instructional designers is key to the successful design and implementation of writing support programs.


Assuntos
Docentes de Enfermagem/educação , Bibliotecários/educação , Pesquisa em Enfermagem/métodos , Publicações/normas , Desenvolvimento de Pessoal/métodos , Redação/normas , Adulto , Feminino , Guias como Assunto , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos de Casos Organizacionais
20.
Ir J Med Sci ; 189(1): 315-325, 2020 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31418153

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The high incidence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in children, combined with the challenges in diagnosis and treatment options, the difficulty of predicting the outcome of each case, and also the wide variety of possibly lifelong complications, has led to an extraordinary number of published papers regarding this topic. This bibliometric analysis is aimed at identifying and reviewing the 100 most cited papers in the most challenging and trending aspects of pediatric traumatic brain injury. METHODS: A search was performed using the Web of Science database in October 2018. Results were organized by citation number, and the 100 most cited papers were further reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS: Our search resulted in 2754 published papers from 1975 until October 2018, of which 1783 (64.74%) had been published in the last decade (2010-2018). The 100 most cited papers about traumatic brain injury in children have an average citation of 140.59 and have been published in 44 different journals. Four hundred thirty-five authors have contributed to these prominent articles, most of them from the USA. CONCLUSIONS: By reviewing those highly cited papers, we sought to offer significant help not only for studying this challenging field but also for designing new studies.


Assuntos
Bibliometria , Lesões Encefálicas Traumáticas/epidemiologia , Publicações/normas , Criança , Humanos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...