scholarly journals Do German University Medical Centres promote robust and transparent research? – A cross-sectional study of institutional policies.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Reinhard Holst ◽  
Alice Faust ◽  
Daniel Strech
Keyword(s):  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Institutional Policies ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Academic Promotion ◽  
Incentive Structures ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Academic Degrees

Abstract Background In light of replication and translational failures, biomedical research practices have recently come under scrutiny. Experts have pointed out that the current incentive structures at research institutions insufficiently incentivise researchers to invest in robustness and transparency and instead incentivise them to optimise their fitness in the struggle for publications and grants. This cross-sectional study aimed to describe whether and how relevant policies of university medical centres in Germany support the robust and transparent conduct of research and how prevalent traditional metrics are. Methods For 38 German university medical centres, we searched for institutional policies for academic degrees and academic appointments, as well as websites for their core facilities and research in general. We screened the documents for mentions of indicators of robust and transparent research and for mentions of more traditional metrics of career progression. Results While Open Access was mentioned in 16% of PhD regulations, other indicators of robust and transparent research (study registration; reporting of results; sharing of data, code, and protocols; and robustness) were mentioned in less than 10% of institutional policies for academic degrees and academic appointments. These indicators were more frequently mentioned on the core facility and general research websites. Regarding the traditional metrics, the institutional policies for academic degrees and academic appointments had frequent mentions of the number of publications, grant money, impact factors, and authorship order. Conclusions References to robust and transparent research practices are, with a few exceptions, generally uncommon in institutional policies at German university medical centres, while traditional criteria for academic promotion and tenure still prevail.

scholarly journals Assessment of transparent and reproducible research practices in the psychiatry literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. e100149
Author(s):  
Caroline Elizabeth Sherry ◽  
Jonathan Z Pollard ◽  
Daniel Tritz ◽  
Branden K Carr ◽  
Aaron Pierce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
The State ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Core ◽  
Scientific Advancement ◽  
Core Components ◽  
Number Of Publications

BackgroundReproducibility is a cornerstone of scientific advancement; however, many published works may lack the core components needed for study reproducibility.AimsIn this study, we evaluate the state of transparency and reproducibility in the field of psychiatry using specific indicators as proxies for these practices.MethodsAn increasing number of publications have investigated indicators of reproducibility, including research by Harwicke et al, from which we based the methodology for our observational, cross-sectional study. From a random 5-year sample of 300 publications in PubMed-indexed psychiatry journals, two researchers extracted data in a duplicate, blinded fashion using a piloted Google form. The publications were examined for indicators of reproducibility and transparency, which included availability of: materials, data, protocol, analysis script, open-access, conflict of interest, funding and online preregistration.ResultsThis study ultimately evaluated 296 randomly-selected publications with a 3.20 median impact factor. Only 107 were available online. Most primary authors originated from USA, UK and the Netherlands. The top three publication types were cohort studies, surveys and clinical trials. Regarding indicators of reproducibility, 17 publications gave access to necessary materials, four provided in-depth protocol and one contained raw data required to reproduce the outcomes. One publication offered its analysis script on request; four provided a protocol availability statement. Only 107 publications were publicly available: 13 were registered in online repositories and four, ten and eight publications included their hypothesis, methods and analysis, respectively. Conflict of interest was addressed by 177 and reported by 31 publications. Of 185 publications with a funding statement, 153 publications were funded and 32 were unfunded.ConclusionsCurrently, Psychiatry research has significant potential to improve adherence to reproducibility and transparency practices. Thus, this study presents a reference point for the state of reproducibility and transparency in Psychiatry literature. Future assessments are recommended to evaluate and encourage progress.

scholarly journals Evaluating Scholars’ Impact and Influence: Cross-sectional Study of the Correlation Between a Novel Social Media–Based Score and an Author-Level Citation Metric (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas Oliveira J e Silva ◽  
Graciela Maldonado ◽  
Tara Brigham ◽  
Aidan F Mullan ◽  
Audun Utengen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Spearman Correlation ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
H Index ◽  
Academic Promotion ◽  
Positive Correlation ◽  
Weak Positive Correlation

BACKGROUND The development of an author-level complementary metric could play a role in the process of academic promotion through objective evaluation of scholars’ influence and impact. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the Healthcare Social Graph (HSG) score, a novel social media influence and impact metric, and the h-index, a traditional author-level metric. METHODS This was a cross-sectional study of health care stakeholders with a social media presence randomly sampled from the Symplur database in May 2020. We performed stratified random sampling to obtain a representative sample with all strata of HSG scores. We manually queried the h-index in two reference-based databases (Scopus and Google Scholar). Continuous features (HSG score and h-index) from the included profiles were summarized as the median and IQR. We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) to evaluate the correlation between the HSG scores and h-indexes obtained from Google Scholar and Scopus. RESULTS A total of 286 (31.2%) of the 917 stakeholders had a Google Scholar h-index available. The median HSG score for these profiles was 61.1 (IQR 48.2), and the median h-index was 14.5 (IQR 26.0). For the 286 subjects with the HSG score and Google Scholar h-index available, the Spearman correlation coefficient ρ was 0.1979 (<i>P</i>&lt;.001), indicating a weak positive correlation between these two metrics. A total of 715 (78%) of 917 stakeholders had a Scopus h-index available. The median HSG score for these profiles was 57.6 (IQR 46.4), and the median h-index was 7 (IQR 16). For the 715 subjects with the HSG score and Scopus h-index available, ρ was 0.2173 (<i>P</i>&lt;.001), also indicating a weak positive correlation. CONCLUSIONS We found a weak positive correlation between a novel author-level complementary metric and the h-index. More than a chiasm between traditional citation metrics and novel social media–based metrics, our findings point toward a bridge between the two domains.

scholarly journals Mental health among COVID-19 survivors and healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a cross-sectional study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Chen ◽  
Yan Wang ◽  
Ting Yang ◽  
Cheng Li ◽  
Zhiling Sun
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Psychological Status ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Low Educated

Abstract Then novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic was considered to be the worst and complex virus outbreak, which caused 56,985 deaths as of April 22, 2020 already. The epidemic infectious may cause mental health crisis. Meanwhile, little is known about the specific psychological status of the COVID-19 survivors and healthcare workers. This cross-sectional study surveyed the mental health among 20 COVID-19 survivors, 54 nurses, and 24 hygienists in Wuhan, China and analyze the possible impact factors using the Symptom Check List 90 - Revised (SCL90-R) questionnaire. 3 indices and 9 dimensions were compared among job, education level, gender, age, marriage classification. This study found that mental distress among participants was not very serious in general. The survivors presented a highest score, then the hygienists, and the lowest in nurses. Low-educated and women showed significant increase. No significant difference was noted in age and marriage classification. Our study indicated that the survivors need psychological support immediately. Meanwhile, healthcare workers warrant more attention, especially low-educated and women. Comprehensive emergency response plan was warranted.

scholarly journals Institutional policies on posthumous reproduction using oocytes and embryos: preliminary results from a cross-sectional study

2019 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. e53
Author(s):  
Emma C. Trawick ◽  
Amani Sampson ◽  
David L. Keefe ◽  
Arthur L. Caplan ◽  
Kara N. Goldman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Institutional Policies ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Posthumous Reproduction

scholarly journals P.120 Conflict of interest in neurosurgery: an analysis of disclosure policies in neurosurgical journals

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (s2) ◽  
pp. S48-S48
Author(s):  
MP de Lotbiniere-Bassett ◽  
PJ McDonald ◽  
J Riva-Cambrin
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Policy Statements

Background: Industry funding of neurosurgery research is on the rise and this creates a conflict of interest (COI) with the potential to bias results. The reporting and handling of COI is impacted by the variation in policies and definitions between journals. In this study we sought to evaluate the prevalence and comprehensiveness of COI policies amongst leading neurosurgical journals. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of publicly available online disclosure policies in the 20 highest-ranking neurosurgical journals, as determined by Google Scholar Metrics, in July of 2016. Results: Eighteen (89.5%) of the top neurosurgical journals included COI policy statements. Ten journals requested declaration of non-financial conflicts, while two journals defined a time period of interest for conflicts. Sixteen journals required declaration from the corresponding author, 13 from all authors, six from reviewers and five from editors. Five journals included COI declaration verification, management or enforcement. Journals with more comprehensive COI policies were significantly more likely to have higher h5-indices (p=0.003) and higher impact factors (p=0.01). Conclusions: In 2016, the majority of high-impact neurosurgical journals had publicly available COI disclosure policies. Policies varied substantially across neurosurgical journals; but COI comprehensiveness was associated with impact factor and h5-index. More comprehensive and consistent COI policies will facilitate increased transparency in neurosurgery research.

scholarly journals Gender and academic promotion of Canadian general surgeons: a cross-sectional study

CMAJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. E34-E40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nada Gawad ◽  
Alexandre Tran ◽  
Andre B. Martel ◽  
Nancy N. Baxter ◽  
Molly Allen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Academic Promotion ◽  
General Surgeons

scholarly journals Accuracy of PubMed-based author lists of publications and use of author identifiers to address author name ambiguity: a cross-sectional study

2021 ◽  
Vol 126 (5) ◽  
pp. 4121-4135
Author(s):  
Paul Sebo ◽  
Sylvain de Lucia ◽  
Nathalie Vernaz
Keyword(s):  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Advanced Search ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Search Option

AbstractObjective: To assess the accuracy of PubMed-based author lists of publications and use of author identifiers to address author name ambiguity. Methods: In this Swiss study conducted in 2019, 300 hospital-based senior physicians were asked to generate a list of their publications in PubMed and complete a questionnaire (type of query used, number of errors in their list of publications, knowledge and use of ORCID and ResearcherID). Results: 156 physicians (52%) agreed to participate, 145 of whom published at least one article (mean number of publications: 60 (SD 73)). Only 17% used the advanced search option. On average, there were 5 articles in the lists that were not co-authored by participants (advanced search: 1.0 (SD 2.6) vs. 5.9 (SD 13.9), p value 0.02) and 3 articles co-authored by participants that did not appear in the lists (advanced search: 1.5 (SD 2.0) vs. 3.6 (SD 8.4), p-value 0.05). Although 82% were aware of ORCID, only 16% added all their articles (39% and 6% respectively for ResearcherID). Conclusions: When used by senior physicians, the advanced search in PubMed is accurate for retrieving authors’ publications. Author identifiers are only used by a minority of physicians and are therefore not recommended in this context, as they would lead to inaccurate results.

Scientific publications in internal medicine and family medicine: a comparative cross-sectional study in Swiss university hospitals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Sebo ◽  
Sylvain de Lucia ◽  
Nathalie Vernaz
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
University Hospitals ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
H Index ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background Family medicine is a relatively new academic medical discipline. We aimed to compare the main bibliometric indices of hospital-based senior physicians practicing internal medicine versus family medicine in Switzerland. Methods We conducted this cross-sectional study in March 2020. We selected all hospital-based senior physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine in the six Swiss university hospitals. Using Web of Science, after removing from both groups of physicians the 5% with the highest number of publications, we extracted the number of publications, the number of publications per year, the number of citations, the number of citations per year, the number of citations per publication and the h-index. We compared the data between the two groups using negative binomial regressions and the proportion of physicians having at least one publication using chi-square tests. Results We included 349 physicians in the study (internal medicine: 51%, men: 51%). The median number of publications was three [interquartile range (IQR) = 18], the median number of citations was nine (IQR = 158) and the median h-index was one (IQR = 5). All bibliometric indices were similar in both groups, as was the proportion of physicians having at least one publication (family medicine: 87% versus 82%, P = 0.15). Conclusions We found no association between the bibliometric indices and the medical specialty. Further studies are needed to explore other important indicators of academic output, such as those more specifically assessing its quality and scientific importance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document