Maximizing Access and Minimizing Barriers to Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Open Access and Health Equity.

Access to published research has always been difficult for researchers and clinicians in low- and middle-income countries, because of the cost of and lack of access to the relevant publications. The dramatic recent increase in electronic research publications has resulted in a marked improvement in reader access to these publications through their mainly Open Access policies, however the costs of processing of submissions and publication have now become the burden of the researchers wishing to publish, rather than the readers. For many researchers working in LMIC, the Article Processing Charges (APC) are prohibitive, hampering the publication of research being conducted in and relevant to these countries. A number of grant funding agencies and international not-for-profit organizations are trying to address these issues by including funding for article publications in their grants, or by supporting publishing entities by subsiding the cost of publication, but more needs to be done by major journal publishers through markedly reducing the APC being charged to researchers in LMIC for open access facilities.

The metrics maze in science: navigating academic evaluation without journalistic pressures.

In recent years a troubling trend has emerged in the medical research field, notably in reproductive medicine, manifesting an increased emphasis on quantity over quality in articles published. The pressure to collect copious publication records risks compromising meticulous expertise and impactful contributions. This tendency is exemplified by the rise of 'hyper-prolific researchers' publishing at an extraordinary rate (i.e. every 5 days), prompting a deeper analysis of the reasons underlying this behaviour. Prioritizing rapid publication over Galileo Galilei's systematic scientific principles may lead to a superficial approach driven by quantitative targets. Thus, the overreliance on metrics to facilitate academic careers has shifted the focus to numerical quantification rather than the real scientific contribution, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the evaluation systems. The Hamletian question is: are we scientist or journalist? Addressing these issues could necessitate a crucial re-evaluation of the assessment criteria, emphasizing a balance between quantity and quality to foster an academic environment that values meaningful contributions and innovation.

Gender disparities among publications within international sexual medicine urology journals and the impact of blinding in the review process.

BACKGROUND: While female urologists are known to publish at less frequency than their male peers, The Journal of Sexual Medicine was reported to have among the highest growth in female authorship from 2002 to 2020 in urology journals. AIM: We sought to assess the frequency of female authorship in sexual medicine journals worldwide and the factors that affect this, including the blinded/unblinded review process. METHODS: Eleven sexual medicine journals were assessed for geographic location, peer review method, and SCImago Journal Rank citation index (a metric of citation frequency and prestige). Journals were grouped into top, middle, and bottom quartiles based on metric score. Web of Science was used to access the publications' first, second, last, and corresponding authors from the past 5 years. An internet search or Gender-API.com was used to determine the gender identities of authors. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were performed. OUTCOMES: Outcomes included the likelihood of female authorship (first, second, last, and corresponding) based on journal location and ranking, the clustering of female authors, the journal's peer review process, and the frequency of female editorial board members. RESULTS: Overall, 8938 publications were identified. Women represented 30.7%, 31.3%, 21.3%, and 18.7% of the first, second, last, and corresponding authors, respectively; gender was unable to be assessed for 2.6%, 17.2%, 7.3%, and 2.7%. On univariate analysis, journals from North America, in the top quartile, and with a double-blind review process were more likely to have female authors (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, articles were more likely to have a female first author if they had a double-blind peer review process (odds ratio [OR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), a female second author (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 2.26-2.85), or a female corresponding author (OR, 7.80; 95% CI, 6.69-9.10). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Gender-concordant mentoring and universal double-blind manuscript review processes may minimize the impact of gender bias and increase female authorship rates, in turn producing more diverse research. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is the first study assessing female authorship in sexual medicine journals. Limitations include not assessing every author listed on articles and being unable to determine gender identities for some authors. CONCLUSION: Female authorship rates are higher than reported rates of practicing female urologists but still lower than their male peers. Female authors were more likely to be published in journals with double-blind peer review processes and when publishing with additional female authors.

75 years' journey of malaria publications in English: what and where?

Malaria has inflicted serious morbidity and mortality across the globe. The major brunt of the disease has been on African, South-East Asian and South American countries. Proportionally, malaria has attracted global research priorities and this is evident from the number of publications related to malaria from across the globe, irrespective of its endemicity. However, formal and exhaustive analyses of these 'malaria publications' are rarely reported. The systematic review and secondary data analyses were done to retrieve information on what has been published on malaria, where is it published, and which countries are major contributors to malaria research.The study presents malaria publications from 1945 to 2020 retrieved using three databases: Web of Science™, Embase® and Scopus®. Exported data were examined to determine the number of publications over time, their subject areas, contributions from various countries/organizations, and top publishing journals.The total number of published records on malaria ranged from 90,282 to 112,698 (due to three different databases). Based on the number of publications, USA, UK, France, and India were identified as the top four countries. Malaria Journal, American Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, and PLoS One were the most preferred journals, whereas the University of London (Institutions other than LSHTM), the National Institute of Health, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the University of Oxford appeared to be the top contributing organization.A disproportional contribution to malaria research was observed with non-malaria endemic countries making the largest contribution. Databases differed in their output format and needed standardization to make the outputs comparable across databases.

The 100 most-cited and 100 most-mentioned COVID-19-related radiological articles: a comparative bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify the 100 most-cited and 100 most-mentioned coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)-related radiological articles and compare their characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Web of Science and Altmetric.com using the search terms "COVID," "COVID-19," "Coronavirus," "SARS-CoV-2," "nCoV," and "pandemic" to identify the most-cited and most-mentioned COVID-19-related articles. We identified the top 100 most-cited and 100 most-mentioned articles in the field of radiology, regardless of their publication journal. We extracted the information from the listed articles and compared the characteristics between the most-cited and most-mentioned. RESULTS: Thirty (30%) articles were featured in the lists of the most-cited and most-mentioned articles. The comparison of the 100 most-cited and most-mentioned articles on each list showed that the most frequently cited articles were published in November 2020 and before (p < .001), originated from China (p < .001), covered the topic of diagnosis of COVID-19 (p < .001), and were related to the subspecialty of pulmonary imaging (p < .001); the most frequently mentioned articles were published in December 2020 and after (p < .001), originated from the USA (p < .001), covered the topic of diagnosis of sequelae of COVID-19 (p = .013) and post-vaccination complications (p < .001), and were related to the subspecialties of cardiac imaging (p < .001) and neuroradiology (p < .013). CONCLUSION: Significant differences were observed in publication date, country of origin, topic, and subspecialty of scientific knowledge related to COVID-19 in the field of radiology, between citation and public dissemination. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This bibliometric analysis compares the 100 most-cited and 100 most-mentioned COVID-19-related radiologic articles, aiming to provide valuable insights into the patterns of knowledge dissemination during the pandemic era. KEY POINTS: • Thirty articles were featured on the lists of the 100 most-cited and 100 most-mentioned COVID-19-related articles. • The 70 unique most-cited articles more frequently originated from China (48.6%), while the unique most-mentioned articles more frequently originated from the USA (51.4%) (p < 0.001). • The 70 unique most-mentioned articles were more frequently related to cardiac imaging (25.7% vs.0%, p < 0.001) and neuroradiology (15.7% vs. 1.4%, p < 0.005) compared to the unique most-mentioned articles.

Readability of American Society of Metabolic Surgery's Patient Information Publications.

INTRODUCTION: Appropriate education and information are the keystones of patient autonomy. Surgical societies support this goal through online informational publications. Despite these recommendations, many of these sources do not provide the appropriate level of reading for the average patient. Multiple national organizations, including the AMA and NIH, have recommended that such materials be written at or below a 6th-grade level. We therefore aimed to evaluate the readability of patient information publications provided by the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS). METHODS: Patient information publications were collected from the ASMBS webpage (https://asmbs.org/patients) and evaluated for readability. Microsoft Office was utilized to calculate Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) scores. Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) is a 0-100 score, with higher scores equating to easier reading (≥80 = 6th-grade reading level). Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) rates text on a US grade school level. Qualitative and univariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Eleven patient information publications were evaluated. None of the publications achieved an FRE score of 80 or an FKGL of a 6th-grade reading level. The average FRE score was 35.8 (range 14.9-53.6). The average FKGL score was 13.1 (range 10.1-17.5). The publication with the highest FRE and lowest FKGL (best readability) was that for benefits of weight loss. The brochure with the lowest FRE and highest FKGL (worst readability) was that for Medical Tourism. CONCLUSIONS: Although the ASMBS patient information publications are a trusted source of patient literature, none of the 11 publications met the recommended criteria for patient readability. Further refinement of these will be needed to provide the appropriate reading level for the average patient.

From Deutsche Zeitschrift to International journal of legal medicine-100 years of legal medicine through the lens of journal articles, Part 4: International journal of legal medicine from 1990 to 2022.

This is the fourth and final paper in a series related to the analysis of articles published in this journal during its first 100 years of activity. This article covers the time span from 1990 to 2022. It is important to note that, given the period covered by this analysis, it does not aim to provide a historical overview but rather an examination of the most recent trends in our discipline compared to the past. Between 1990 (Volume 104) and 2022 (Volume 136), 4004 articles were published in the International Journal of Legal Medicine (IJLM) across 33 volumes. This corresponds to 53% of all the articles published since the launch of the journal. When compared to the period from 1970 to 1990, some categories no longer appear to be as relevant (e.g., sexual medicine, 1 article; social medicine, 0 articles; biography, 3 articles; history, 4 articles). Conversely, the most recent period has shown an increasing importance in forensic genetics (1388 articles) and the emergence of new significant topics that merit their own classification, such as age estimation (286 articles), forensic anthropology (189 articles), forensic imaging (150 articles), and forensic entomology (90 articles).

The pediatric anesthesiology publication activity and landscape over the past two decades: A longitudinal scientometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Scientometric analyses characterize the output of research publications using quantitative methods. While it has been reported that the number of publications in anesthesiology has been increasing for years, the global research activity in pediatric anesthesiology and its landscape is largely unknown. AIMS: To examine the activity, developmental dynamics, and collaboration landscape of research publications in pediatric anesthesiology over the past two decades. METHODS: PubMed and WebOfScience were searched for pediatric anesthesiology publications published between 2001 and 2020. The identified publications were exported into a database, matched, curated, and then assigned to one or more countries according to their affiliation field(s). The primary outcome was the publication activity and its growth rate. Secondary outcomes included the geographical distribution, the evolution of international collaborations (as indicated by articles affiliated with more than one country), and the main sources. RESULTS: Thirty-four thousand, three hundred and forty-three pediatric anesthesiology publications were retrieved. The compound annual growth rate over the study period was +7.6%. The highest annual growth rate was +20.6% from 2019 to 2020. Corresponding authors were most often affiliated with USA (32.5%), Germany (5.5%), and China (5.5%). China (+22.9%), Iran (+21.7%), and India (+16.1%) had the highest compound annual growth rates. 6001 (17.5%) articles involved international collaboration, with a compound annual growth rate of +13.1%. The most frequent collaboration was between USA and Canada (716 articles together). The most prominent source was Pediatric Anesthesia (10.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Publication activity in pediatric anesthesiology has increased from 2001 to 2020 and has become more geographically diverse. With the volume of international collaborations even outpacing this growth, it is hoped that this will gradually lead to a larger evidence base in pediatric anesthesia.

Twenty-Five Years of Progress-Lessons Learned From JMIR Publications to Address Gender Parity in Digital Health Authorships: Bibliometric Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Digital health research plays a vital role in advancing equitable health care. The diversity of research teams is thereby instrumental in capturing societal challenges, increasing productivity, and reducing bias in algorithms. Despite its importance, the gender distribution within digital health authorship remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the gender distribution among first and last authors in digital health research, thereby identifying predicting factors of female authorship. METHODS: This bibliometric analysis examined the gender distribution across 59,980 publications from 1999 to 2023, spanning 42 digital health journals indexed in the Web of Science. To identify strategies ensuring equality in research, a detailed comparison of gender representation in JMIR journals was conducted within the field, as well as against a matched sample. Two-tailed Welch 2-sample t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and chi-square tests were used to assess differences. In addition, odds ratios were calculated to identify predictors of female authorship. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that 37% of first authors and 30% of last authors in digital health were female. JMIR journals demonstrated a higher representation, with 49% of first authors and 38% of last authors being female, yielding odds ratios of 1.96 (95% CI 1.90-2.03; P<.001) and 1.78 (95% CI 1.71-1.84; P<.001), respectively. Since 2008, JMIR journals have consistently featured a greater proportion of female first authors than male counterparts. Other factors that predicted female authorship included having female authors in other relevant positions and gender discordance, given the higher rate of male last authors in the field. CONCLUSIONS: There was an evident shift toward gender parity across publications in digital health, particularly from the publisher JMIR Publications. The specialized focus of its sister journals, equitable editorial policies, and transparency in the review process might contribute to these achievements. Further research is imperative to establish causality, enabling the replication of these successful strategies across other scientific fields to bridge the gender gap in digital health effectively.

From master's thesis to research publication: a mixed-methods study of medical student publishing and experiences with the publishing process.

BACKGROUND: Medical student master's theses are often carried out as research projects, and some are published as research papers in journals. We investigated the percentage of master's theses conducted by 5th -year students at the Medical Degree Program at Lund University, Sweden, that subsequently served as the basis for research publications. In addition, we explored both student and supervisor experiences with the publishing process. METHODS: A cohort of four semesters of student data covering the period from 2019 to 2020 (n = 446) was searched in PubMed, Embase and the Web of Science to assess whether they had been published as research papers. Surveys were sent to students (n = 121) and supervisors (n = 77) to explore their experiences with the publishing process. RESULTS: We found that 33% (149 of 446) of the students in the 2019-2020 cohort subsequently published their theses, and 50% of these students were listed as first authors. Most students published original research. Students (n = 21) and supervisors (n = 44) reported that the publishing process was time-consuming and that students needed multilevel support from supervisors to achieve successful publication. The publishing process was reported by 79% of the students to have led to additional learning. Most of the papers (126 of 149, 85%) had a clinical or patient-oriented focus. CONCLUSION: A high percentage of the student publications in which students are listed as first authors require engagement from both students and supervisors. Supervisors play an essential role in supporting students in a successful publication process. Most of the published papers were either clinical or patient-oriented research.

Factors influencing research productivity among Syrian medical professionals amidst conflict: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Medical research productivity is globally increasing, with a lagging progress in third-world countries due to significant challenges, including inadequate training and brain drain. Syria had been showing a slow upward trend until the war broke out and severely hindered academic growth and productivity. A deeper understanding of the factors influencing research productivity in this context are fundamental to guide educational policies and resource allocation. Previous cross-sectional studies that evaluated the perspectives of Syrian academics on the issue were limited by the small sample size of published healthcare workers, making it difficult to identify the factors that enabled them to pursue research. METHODS: To address this challenge, we employed a case-control design. We isolated published early-career Syrian healthcare workers and compared their characteristics and perceptions to unpublished matched controls. Authors in the fields of medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy affiliated with any Syrian University were identified through an extensive search of PubMed and Google Scholar.These authors were invited to complete a questionnaire that covered participants' research contributions, alongside their self-assessed knowledge, attitudes, and barriers towards research. The questionnaire was publicly published to recruit an equal sample of matching controls, with half consisting of unpublished researchers and the other half of participants without prior research contributions. RESULTS: Six-hundred-sixteen participants were recruited. Their knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers explained 46% and 34% of the variability in research involvement and publication, respectively (P < 0.001). Getting involved in and publishing research studies associated with higher research-related knowledge and attitudes (P < 0.001). Respondents' assessment of research-related barriers and their academic scores did not differ between cases and controls. Superior research-related knowledge and attitudes were associated with male gender, higher English competency, and better internet connectivity. Meanwhile, extracurricular training and mentors' support were associated with more positive research-related attitudes and less perceived barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Research productivity of medical professionals in Syria exhibits a positive correlation with their knowledge and favorable attitudes towards medical research. Noteworthy, the demographic variations are linked to disparities in research-related knowledge and motivation. In conclusion, these results suggest a potential avenue for enhancement through concentrated efforts on improving extracurricular training interventions and mentors' support.

Navigating the journey as a peer reviewer: a roadmap to success.

Peer review is an essential step in scientific progress and clinical improvement, providing opportunity for research to be critically evaluated and improved by one's colleagues. Pharmacists from all job settings are called to serve as peer reviewers in the ever-growing publication landscape of the profession. Despite challenges to engagement such as time and compensation, peer review provides considerable professional development for both authors and reviewers alike. This article will serve as a practical guide for peer reviewers, discussing best practices as well as the handling of different situations that may arise during the process.

A Systematic Review of Retracted Publications in Clinical Orthopaedic Research.

BACKGROUND: Retracted publications are an often-overlooked issue affecting the scientific community, and recent data confirms the overall number of retracted publications is rising. While this has previously been looked at within orthopaedic surgery, a contemporary understanding of retractions is required due to the rapid expansion in publications. Our study aimed to assess the retracted publications within clinical orthopaedic research to evaluate for characteristics and trends. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on December 14, 2023, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. There were 4 databases that were queried to identify retracted publications in clinical orthopaedics that assessed operative and nonoperative orthopaedic interventions (excluding basic science). Articles were independently screened by 2 reviewers; those meeting the inclusion criteria were evaluated for various characteristics, including reasons for retraction based on Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines. RESULTS: There were 233 studies that met the inclusion criteria and were retracted between January 1, 1990, and December 14, 2023. Clinical orthopaedics represented 1.18% of all retracted publications identified through PubMed over this period. There were 87 articles that were retracted in 2023, up from 17 in 2022 (a 412% increase). Retracted studies were published in journals with 2022 impact factors up to 9.3, with an average of 3.1 (SD [standard deviation] 1.9). A total of 39.5% of the retracted studies were published in orthopaedic journals, and 60.9% of the retracted articles were published in exclusively open-access journals. The mean time from electronic publication to retraction was 2.1 years (SD 2.2). Retracted articles have been cited up to 180 times (mean 8.6; SD 20). Reasons for retraction included misconduct (45.9%), plagiarism (11.6%), redundant publication (11.6%), unethical research (10.3%), error (9.4%), and others (10.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of retractions in the clinical orthopaedic literature is increasing. Clinical research is the basis for clinical practice guidelines, the gold standard for informing medical decision-making. Retractions may be one harbinger of lower-quality publications; researchers, institutions, and journals together play important roles in maintaining scientific integrity.

Health sciences faculty publication patterns and related information-seeking behavior.

Objectives: This study aims to explore how health science faculty publication patterns at a large public research university have changed over time and examine how productivity relates to their information-seeking behavior and perception of the academic library. Methods: Two datasets were utilized: one consisted of publication records of health sciences faculty spanning a 15-year period, while the other was from a faculty survey exploring faculty's perception of and satisfaction with library resources and services related to their research. Results: Health sciences faculty publication patterns have changed over time, characterized by greater productivity, collaboration, and use of literature in their publications. Faculty's literature use correlates with productivity, as evidenced by both datasets. The survey revealed that faculty with more publications tend to rely more on online journals and Interlibrary Loan (ILL). Similarly, the publication data indicated that less productive faculty tended to use fewer references in their publications. Discussion: The publication data and survey results offer valuable insights into the health sciences faculty's information-seeking behavior and productivity. Online access to information has been effective in facilitating use of information, as indicated by the greater incorporation of references in publications. Conclusion: The study highlights the changing publication patterns and productivity of health sciences faculty, as well as the role academic libraries play in supporting their research and publishing activities. Although multiple variables influence faculty access to and use of information, faculty attitudes towards the library and use of the library are related to faculty research and productivity.

Journal metrics of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals - A cross-sectional, comparative study.

PURPOSE: In academic publishing, research metrics play a crucial role in assessing the scientific impact and performance of the published literature, as well as of the journals in which they are published. Several journal-level metrics (JLM) such as the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document are considered crucial indicators of the importance and reputation of the journals. We hypothesize that journals in the field of Medicine receive more citations than those in Surgical journals like Orthopaedic surgery, and hence have better JLM. This study aims to to assess and compare the JLM of Medical and Surgical journals between two time zones 2017-2019 vs. 2020-2022, i.e., pre and post-COVID-19 pandemic period. METHODS: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals was undertaken based on traditional JLM, using the SCImago database from 2017 to 2022. Our analysis focused on identifying trends in the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document. RESULTS: Overall Medical journals were found to have higher JLM than the Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. The h-index of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were comparable between the two periods (pre and -post-COVID-19 pandemic); Total Cites (3 years), total documents (2017), total documents (3 years), total references, and citable documents (3 years) of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were significantly higher in the period 2020-2022. CONCLUSION: There has been a steady increase in the number of publications from post COVID-19 period. Medical journals have higher JLM than Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am), Annals of Surgery and Diabetes Care were the most published journals in Orthopaedics, General Surgery and Medicine-related topics respectively.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Science Clips.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Science Clips is an online weekly bibliographical digest showcasing over 46,000 scientific articles and publications from 2009 to present. The digest is curated by the Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library to bring awareness to relevant and quality public health literature. This overview describes how users can access and navigate the database, and evaluates the database usability and relevance in public health.

Publications in paediatric critical care medicine: Trends from Pakistan.

Objective: To analyse the characteristics of research published from Pakistan on paediatric critical care medicine. METHODS: The exploratory study was conducted at the Aga Khan University, Karachi from July 2021 to March 2022, and comprised a comprehensive search on MedLine, Google Scholar and PakMediNet databases for literature from Pakistan pertaining to paediatric critical care medicine published between January 2010 and December 2021. The search was done using appropriate key words. Conference abstracts and papers authored by paediatric intensivists with unrelated topics were excluded. Data was extracted on a structured spreadsheet, and was subjected to bibliometric analysis. Data was analysed using SPSS 20. RESULTS: Of the 7,514 studies identified, 146(1.94%) were analysed. These were published in 51 journals with a frequency of 13.3 per year. There were 107(73.3%) original articles, 96(65.8%) were published in PubMed-indexed journals, and 35(24%) were published in locally indexed journals. Further, 100(69.4%) papers were published from 5 paediatric intensive care units in Karachi, and 81(56%) were contributed by a single private-sector hospital. The total citation count was 1072, with 2(1.4%) papers receiving >50 citations. There was a linear trend with some skewing and an annual growth rate of >15%. Conclusion: Publications from Pakistan related to paediatric critical care medicine showed positive linear growth. There was a paucity of multicentre studies, randomised controlled trials, and high-impact publications.

A guideline for the appropriate recognition of shared resource laboratories in publication.

The issue of what level of contribution warrants authorship, determining a fair order of authors and when and whom to acknowledge in publications is often a cause of debate, and in some instances, has also been a focus of conflict at certain institutions. Shared resource laboratories (SRLs) play a fundamental role in supporting publications, and SRL staff scientists can contribute to numerous areas such as experimental design, sample preparation, data acquisition, data analysis and manuscript drafting and review. However, SRL staff scientists are often unfairly omitted from the author list. To avoid SRLs and SRL staff scientist contributions going unnoticed, the authors have formulated a set of guidelines to aid in the conceptualization and recognition of the technical and intellectual contributions of SRLs. As a better understanding of the role SRL staff scientists play in the achievement of the scientific lead's experimental aims will foster a positive feedback loop, where acknowledgements can lead to more support and funding for SRLs and more engaged SRL staff capable of supporting discoveries and technological innovations that underpin major advancements in the field of life sciences.

An analysis of vascular surgery education publications reveals an educational shortage.

BACKGROUND: As vascular surgery training continues to evolve with the growth of integrated vascular surgery residency (0+5) programs and the consolidation of fellowship programs, optimizing all aspects of the education for vascular surgery trainees, both fellows and 0+5 residents, has become increasingly important. In the present study, we aimed to determine the prevalence, quality, and content of vascular surgery education publications across journals. METHODS: Journal websites (n = 26) and PubMed were queried to identify vascular surgery education publications from 2012 to 2021. The publications were organized into 11 content categories: (1) curriculum, (2) simulation, (3) trainee assessment, (4) program evaluation, (5) wellness/burnout, (6) diversity/inclusion, (7) mentorship/career, (8) case outcomes, (9) perceptions of training, (10) social media, and (11) other. Publication interactivity and quality were measured via PlumX data and Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument scores. The data were analyzed via univariate analysis and linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 115 vascular surgery education publications (0.2% [interquartile range (IQR), 0.04%-0.5%] of total publications) were identified from the selected journals. The Journal of Vascular Surgery had the highest proportion (0.8%) of vascular surgery education publications, followed by the Journal of Surgical Education (0.7%) and Annals of Vascular Surgery (0.6%). Vascular surgery journals constituted most (79%) of the publications. Of the authors, 15% (IQR, 0%-25%) had a master's or doctorate degree in education. Senior authors were more often identified as male gender (77%), and more first authors (41%) were identified as female gender. An interactivity analysis showed that there were 10.3 citations (IQR, 12), 33.1 captures (IQR, 34), and 8.4 social media interactions (IQR 14) per publication. The educational quality had a median Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument score of 11 (IQR, 9-12.5), with 49% of publications having a score greater than the median. Publications on training (44% curriculum and 20% simulation) were significantly more frequent than other topics (P < .001), with no change in the publication content over 10 years (P = .29). The volume of vascular surgery education publications did not change during the study period (P = .13) despite the ongoing changes in the educational environment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing importance placed on vascular surgery education by national vascular societies, publications on vascular surgery education have remained sparse among all journals. Also, the vascular surgery educational content has not changed during the past 10 years, with a primary focus on curriculum and simulation training. Further promotion of vascular surgery educational research is required to increase the quality, volume, and diversity of education publications.

Distribution of Female and Male First and Last Authorship across Drug Delivery Related Journals with Respect to Year and Journal Impact Factor.

First and last authorship are important metrics of productivity and scholarly success for trainees and professors. For 11 drug delivery-related journals in 2021, the percentage of female first (39.5%) and last (25.7%) authorship was reported. A strong negative correlation, with female first (rp = -0.73) and female last authorship (rp = -0.66), was observed with respect to journal impact factor. In contrast, there was a strong positive correlation with male first and last authorship (rp = 0.71). Papers were ∼1.5 times more likely to have a male first author, and ∼3 times more likely to have a male last author, than females. A female was 22% more likely to have first authorship if the last author was female, although there is an ∼1% increase per year in female authorship with male last authorship, which equates to equality in first authorship by 2044. Considering that drug delivery is composed of engineering, chemistry, and pharmaceutical science disciplines, the observed 25.7% female last authorship does not represent the approximately 35.5% to 50% of professors that are female in these disciplines, internationally. Overall, female authorship in drug delivery-related journals should improve to better represent the work of female senior authors.