scholarly journals Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m2081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle B Rice ◽  
Hana Raffoul ◽  
John P A Ioannidis ◽  
David Moher
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Full Professor ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Sectional Analysis

AbstractObjectiveTo 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.DesignCross sectional study.SettingInternational sample of universities.Participants170 randomly selected universities from the Leiden ranking of world universities list.Main outcome measurePresence 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsThis 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 registrationOpen Science Framework (https://osf.io/26ucp/?view_only=b80d2bc7416543639f577c1b8f756e44).

scholarly journals Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences: a cross-sectional analysis of 146 universities

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle B Rice ◽  
Hana Raffoul ◽  
John PA Ioannidis ◽  
David Moher
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Open Science ◽  
List Type ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Grant Funding ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
International Reputation ◽  
Journal Impact

ABSTRACTObjectivesTo determine the presence of a set of pre-specified traditional and progressive criteria used to assess scientists for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences among universities worldwide.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingNot applicable.Participants170 randomly selected universities from the Leiden Ranking of world universities list were considered.Main outcome measuresTwo independent reviewers searched for all guidelines applied when assessing scientists for promotion and tenure for institutions with biomedical faculties. Where faculty-level guidelines were not available, institution-level guidelines were sought. Available documents were reviewed and the presence of 5 traditional (e.g., number of publications) and 7 progressive (e.g., data sharing) criteria was noted in guidelines for assessing assistant professors, associate professors, professors, and the granting of tenure.ResultsA total of 146 institutions had faculties of biomedical sciences with 92 having eligible guidelines available to review. Traditional criteria were more commonly reported than progressive criteria (t(82)= 15.1, p= .001). Traditional criteria mentioned peer-reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact, grant funding, and national or international reputation in 95%, 37%, 28%, 67%, and 48% of the guidelines, respectively. Conversely, among progressive criteria only citations (any mention in 26%) and accommodations for extenuating circumstances (37%) were relatively commonly mentioned; while there was rare mention of alternative metrics for sharing research (2%) and data sharing (1%), and 3 criteria (publishing in open access mediums, registering research, and adhering to reporting guidelines) were not found in any institution reviewed. We observed notable differences across continents on whether guidelines are accessible or not (Australia 100%, North America 97%, Europe 50%, Asia 58%, South America 17%), and more subtle differences on the use of specific criteria.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that the current evaluation of scientists emphasizes traditional criteria as opposed to progressive 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 incentivizing progressive criteria.RegistrationOpen Science Framework (https://osf.io/26ucp/)What is already known on this topicAcademics tailor their research practices based on the evaluation criteria applied within their academic institution.Ensuring that biomedical researchers are incentivized by adhering to best practice guidelines for research is essential given the clinical implications of this work.While changes to the criteria used to assess professors and confer tenure have been recommended, a systematic assessment of promotion and tenure criteria being applied worldwide has not been conducted.What this study addsAcross countries, university guidelines focus on rewarding traditional research criteria (peer-reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact, grant funding, and national or international reputation).The minimum requirements for promotion and tenure criteria are predominantly objective in nature, although several of them are inadequate measures to assess the impact of researchers.Developing and evaluating more appropriate, progressive indicators of research may facilitate changes in the evaluation practices for rewarding researchers.

scholarly journals Transparent, Reproducible, and Open Science Practices of Published Literature in Dermatology Journals: Cross-Sectional Analysis

10.2196/16078 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. e16078
Author(s):  
J Michael Anderson ◽  
Andrew Niemann ◽  
Austin L Johnson ◽  
Courtney Cook ◽  
Daniel Tritz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Study Materials ◽  
Advanced Search ◽  
Sufficient Detail ◽  
Sectional Analysis

Background Reproducible research is a foundational component for scientific advancements, yet little is known regarding the extent of reproducible research within the dermatology literature. Objective This study aimed to determine the quality and transparency of the literature in dermatology journals by evaluating for the presence of 8 indicators of reproducible and transparent research practices. Methods By implementing a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of publications in dermatology journals from the National Library of Medicine catalog. Our search included articles published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. After generating a list of eligible dermatology publications, we then searched for full text PDF versions by using Open Access Button, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Publications were analyzed for 8 indicators of reproducibility and transparency—availability of materials, data, analysis scripts, protocol, preregistration, conflict of interest statement, funding statement, and open access—using a pilot-tested Google Form. Results After exclusion, 127 studies with empirical data were included in our analysis. Certain indicators were more poorly reported than others. We found that most publications (113, 88.9%) did not provide unmodified, raw data used to make computations, 124 (97.6%) failed to make the complete protocol available, and 126 (99.2%) did not include step-by-step analysis scripts. Conclusions Our sample of studies published in dermatology journals do not appear to include sufficient detail to be accurately and successfully reproduced in their entirety. Solutions to increase the quality, reproducibility, and transparency of dermatology research are warranted. More robust reporting of key methodological details, open data sharing, and stricter standards journals impose on authors regarding disclosure of study materials might help to better the climate of reproducible research in dermatology.

scholarly journals Transparent, Reproducible, and Open Science Practices of Published Literature in Dermatology Journals: Cross-Sectional Analysis (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Michael Anderson ◽  
Andrew Niemann ◽  
Austin L Johnson ◽  
Courtney Cook ◽  
Daniel Tritz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Study Materials ◽  
Advanced Search ◽  
Sufficient Detail ◽  
Sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND Reproducible research is a foundational component for scientific advancements, yet little is known regarding the extent of reproducible research within the dermatology literature. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine the quality and transparency of the literature in dermatology journals by evaluating for the presence of 8 indicators of reproducible and transparent research practices. METHODS By implementing a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of publications in dermatology journals from the National Library of Medicine catalog. Our search included articles published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. After generating a list of eligible dermatology publications, we then searched for full text PDF versions by using Open Access Button, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Publications were analyzed for 8 indicators of reproducibility and transparency—availability of materials, data, analysis scripts, protocol, preregistration, conflict of interest statement, funding statement, and open access—using a pilot-tested Google Form. RESULTS After exclusion, 127 studies with empirical data were included in our analysis. Certain indicators were more poorly reported than others. We found that most publications (113, 88.9%) did not provide unmodified, raw data used to make computations, 124 (97.6%) failed to make the complete protocol available, and 126 (99.2%) did not include step-by-step analysis scripts. CONCLUSIONS Our sample of studies published in dermatology journals do not appear to include sufficient detail to be accurately and successfully reproduced in their entirety. Solutions to increase the quality, reproducibility, and transparency of dermatology research are warranted. More robust reporting of key methodological details, open data sharing, and stricter standards journals impose on authors regarding disclosure of study materials might help to better the climate of reproducible research in dermatology.

Correlation of Altmetric Attention Scores with Citations in Major Pharmacy Journals (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dave L Dixon ◽  
William L Baker
Keyword(s):  
Citation Count ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Article Type ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND The impact and quality of a faculty members publications is a key factor in promotion and tenure decisions and career advancement. Traditional measures, including citation counts and journal impact factor, have notable limitations. Since 2010, alternative metrics have been proposed as another means of assessing the impact and quality of scholarly work. The Altmetric Attention Score is an objective score frequently used to determine the immediate reach of a published work across the web, including news outlets, blogs, social media, and more. Several studies evaluating the correlation between the Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations have found mixed results and may be discipline-specific. OBJECTIVE To determine the correlation between higher Altmetric Attention Scores and citation count for journal articles published in major pharmacy journals. METHODS This cross-sectional study evaluated articles from major pharmacy journals ranked in the top 10% according to the Altmetric Attention Score. Sources of attention that determined the Altmetric Attention Score were obtained, as well each articles open access status, article type, study design, and topic. Correlation between journal characteristics, including the Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations, was assessed using the Spearman’s correlation test. A Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the Altmetric Attention Scores between journals. RESULTS Six major pharmacy journals were identified. A total of 1,376 articles were published in 2017 and 137 of these represented the top 10% with the highest Altmetric Attention Scores. The median Altmetric Attention Score was 19 (IQR 15-28). Twitter and Mendeley were the most common sources of attention. Over half (56.2%) of the articles were original investigations and 49.8% were either cross-sectional, qualitative, or cohort studies. No significant correlation was found between the Altmetric Attention Score and citation count (rs=0.07, P = 0.485). Mendeley was the only attention source that correlated with the number of citations (rs=0.486, P<0.001). The median Altmetric Attention Score varied widely between each journal (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS The overall median Altmetric Attention score of 19 suggests articles published in major pharmacy journals are near the top 5% of all scientific output. However, we found no correlation between the Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations for articles published in major pharmacy journals in the year 2017.

Evaluation of a Telephone Version for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Establishing a Cutoff for Normative Data From a Cross-Sectional Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 089198872110026
Author(s):  
Sivan Klil-Drori ◽  
Natalie Phillips ◽  
Alita Fernandez ◽  
Shelley Solomon ◽  
Adi J. Klil-Drori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Assessment ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Montreal Cognitive Assessment ◽  
Cutoff Score ◽  
Cognitive Screening ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Sectional Analysis ◽  
State Examination ◽  
Normal Cognition

Objective: Compare a telephone version and full version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of a prospective study. A 20-point telephone version of MoCA (Tele-MoCA) was compared to the Full-MoCA and Mini Mental State Examination. Results: Total of 140 participants enrolled. Mean scores for language were significantly lower with Tele-MoCA than with Full-MoCA (P = .003). Mean Tele-MoCA scores were significantly higher for participants with over 12 years of education (P < .001). Cutoff score of 17 for the Tele-MoCA yielded good specificity (82.2%) and negative predictive value (84.4%), while sensitivity was low (18.2%). Conclusions: Remote screening of cognition with a 20-point Tele-MoCA is as specific for defining normal cognition as the Full-MoCA. This study shows that telephone evaluation is adequate for virtual cognitive screening. Our sample did not allow accurate assessment of sensitivity for Tele-MoCA in detecting MCI or dementia. Further studies with representative populations are needed to establish sensitivity.

Gender Differences in Academic Rank and NIH Funding among Academic Maternal–Fetal Medicine Physicians in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (05) ◽  
pp. 443-448
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Sperling ◽  
Rachel Shulman ◽  
Cinthia Blat ◽  
Edward Miller ◽  
Jolene Kokroko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Web Sites ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Maternal Fetal Medicine ◽  
Fetal Medicine ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Nih Funding

Objective This article evaluates gender differences in academic rank and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding among academic maternal–fetal medicine (MFM) physicians. Study Design This was a cross-sectional study of board-certified academic MFM physicians. Physicians were identified in July 2017 from the MFM fellowship Web sites. Academic rank and receipt of any NIH funding were compared by gender. Data on potential confounders were collected, including years since board certification, region of practice, additional degrees, number of publications, and h-index. Results We identified 659 MFM physicians at 72 institutions, 312 (47.3%) male and 347 (52.7%) female. There were 246 (37.3%) full, 163 (24.7%) associate, and 250 (37.9%) assistant professors. Among the 154 (23.4%) MFM physicians with NIH funding, 89 (57.8%) were male and 65 (42.2%) were female (p = 0.003). Adjusting for potential confounders, male MFM physicians were twice as likely to hold a higher academic rank than female MFM physicians (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.04 [95% confidence interval, 1.39–2.94], p < 0.001). There was no difference in NIH funding between male and female MFM physicians (aOR, 1.23 [0.79–1.92], p = 0.36). Conclusion Compared with female academic MFM physicians, male academic MFM physicians were twice as likely to hold a higher academic rank but were no more likely to receive NIH funding.

scholarly journals Science, healthcare system, and government effectiveness perception and COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and hesitancy in a global sample: an analytical cross-sectional analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e049716
Author(s):  
Timothy D Dye ◽  
Monica Barbosu ◽  
Shazia Siddiqi ◽  
José G Pérez Ramos ◽  
Hannah Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Public Perception ◽  
Strong Predictor ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Amazon Mechanical Turk ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Vaccine Acceptance ◽  
Vaccination Acceptance ◽  
Sectional Analysis

BackgroundDeterminants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance are complex; how perceptions of the effectiveness of science, healthcare and government impact personal COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is unclear, despite all three domains providing critical roles in development, funding and provision, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccine.ObjectiveTo estimate impact of perception of science, healthcare systems, and government along with sociodemographic, psychosocial, and cultural characteristics on vaccine acceptance.DesignWe conducted a global nested analytical cross-sectional study of how the perceptions of healthcare, government and science systems have impacted COVID-19 on vaccine acceptance.SettingGlobal Facebook, Instagram and Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) users from 173 countries.Participants7411 people aged 18 years or over, and able to read English, Spanish, Italian, or French.MeasurementsWe used Χ2 analysis and logistic regression-derived adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs to evaluate the relationship between effectiveness perceptions and vaccine acceptance controlling for other factors. We used natural language processing and thematic analysis to analyse the role of vaccine-related narratives in open-ended explanations of effectiveness.ResultsAfter controlling for confounding, attitude toward science was a strong predictor of vaccine acceptance, more so than other attitudes, demographic, psychosocial or COVID-19-related variables (aOR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.8 to 2.5). The rationale for science effectiveness was dominated by vaccine narratives, which were uncommon in other domains.LimitationsThis study did not include participants from countries where Facebook and Amazon mTurk are not available, and vaccine acceptance reflected intention rather than actual behaviour.ConclusionsAs our findings show, vaccine-related issues dominate public perception of science’s impact around COVID-19, and this perception of science relates strongly to the decision to obtain vaccination once available.

scholarly journals Health Canada’s use of expedited review pathways and therapeutic innovation, 1995–2016: cross-sectional analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e023605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel Lexchin
Keyword(s):  
Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Therapeutic Value ◽  
Kappa Value ◽  
Innovative Drugs ◽  
Sectional Analysis ◽  
Health Canada

ObjectivesThis study examines the use of expedited approval pathways by Health Canada over the period 1995 to 2016 inclusive and the relationship between the use of these pathways and the therapeutic gain offered by new products.DesignCross-sectional study.Data sourcesTherapeutic Products Directorate, Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate, Notice of Compliance database, Notice of Compliance with conditions web site, Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, La revue Prescrire, WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification system.Primary and secondary outcomesPercent of new drugs evaluated by Health Canada that went through an expedited pathway between 1995 and 2016 inclusive. Kappa values comparing the review status with assessments of therapeutic value for individual drugs.ResultsOf 623 drugs approved by Health Canada between 1995 and 2016, 438 (70.3%) drugs went through the standard pathway and 185 (29.7%) an expedited pathway. Therapeutic evaluations were available for 509 drugs. Health Canada used an expedited approval pathway for 159 of the 509 drugs, whereas only 55 were judged to be therapeutically innovative. Forty-two of the 55 therapeutically innovative drugs received an expedited review and 13 received a standard review. The Kappa value for the entire period for all 509 drugs was 0.276 (95% CI 0.194 to 0.359) indicating ‘fair’ agreement between Health Canada’s use of expedited pathways and independent evaluations of therapeutic innovation.ConclusionHealth Canada’s use of expedited approvals was stable over the entire time period. It was unable to reliably predict which drugs will offer major therapeutic gains. The findings in this study should provoke a discussion about whether Health Canada should continue to use these pathways and if so how their use can be improved.

Physical health status of music students in a post-secondary institution: A cross-sectional study

Work ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Allen Ying-Lun Chang ◽  
Hannah Boone ◽  
Phil Gold
Keyword(s):  
Physical Health ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Music Students ◽  
Professional Musicians ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Post Secondary ◽  
Physical Injuries ◽  
Post Secondary Institution ◽  
Mcgill University ◽  
Sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND: Musicians’ health is an essential field of healthcare that is specifically tailored to the needs of musicians, which encompasses multiple facets of health. OBJECTIVE: The research seeks to determine the prevalence of physical injuries in music students and musicians, and to identify possible causes. METHODS: A previously unvalidated 42-item survey was distributed to music students, non-music students, and professional musicians. The questions addressed demographics, physical health, mental health, medication use, and interest in musicians’ health. The study was conducted from Fall semester 2017 to Winter semester 2019 at McGill University, with analysis completed in August 2019. RESULTS: A total of 585 complete responses were obtained. Music students (35%) had higher prevalence of physical injuries than non-music students (18%), and professional musicians had the highest prevalence (56%). Multiple factors dictate the prevalence of physical injuries among musicians, including gender, age, program of enrollment, and instrument of choice. Of note, daily duration of practice was not one of these factors. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors were identified through this cross-sectional analysis to be associated with musicians’ physical injuries. These findings can serve as a foundation through which physicians and post-secondary institutions may implement changes to better enhance the physical health of musicians. It also cast doubts on previous assumptions associated with physical injury of musicians.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document