Covid-19 refereeing duration and impact in major medical journals

Two partly conflicting academic pressures from the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic are the need for faster peer review of Covid-19 health-related research and greater scrutiny of its findings. This paper investigates whether decreases in peer review durations for Covid-19 articles were universal across 97 major medical journals, Nature, Science, and Cell. The results suggest that on average, Covid-19 articles submitted during 2020 were reviewed 1.7–2.1 times faster than non-Covid-19 articles submitted during 2017–2020. Nevertheless, whilst the review speed of Covid-19 research was particularly fast during the first five months (1.9–3.4 times faster) of the pandemic (January–May 2020), this speed advantage was no longer evident for articles submitted November–December 2020. Faster peer review also associates with higher citation impact for Covid-19 articles in the same journals, suggesting it did not usually compromise the scholarly impact of important Covid-19 research. Overall, then, it seems that core medical and general journals responded quickly but carefully to the pandemic, although the situation returned closer to normal within a year. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00176

Trends in Academic Achievement Within Otolaryngology: Does Fellowship Training Impact Research Productivity?

Background Scholarly productivity and research output vary among different subspecialties. The h-index was developed as a more wholesome metric that measures an author's contribution to literature. Objective Through a web-based cross-sectional analysis, we investigated the differences in scholarly impact and influence of both fellowship and nonfellowship-trained academic otolaryngologists in the United States. A secondary objective was to further understand the output among the larger fellowship fields. Methods A cross-sectional analysis was performed for active faculty otolaryngologists. A total of 1704 otolaryngologists were identified as faculty in residency training programs across the United States. Their h-index and publication data were gathered using the Scopus database. The data were obtained in August 2019 and analysis occurred in January 2020. Results Head and neck surgical faculty (25.5%) had the highest representation with fellowship experience. Among all faculty, there was no statistical difference in the overall average h-index scores when comparing faculty that had fellowship training with those who did not (12.6 and 12.1, respectively, P = .498). Rhinologists had the highest publication output per year at 3.90. Among fellowship-trained faculty, the highest average h-index and total publications were seen in head & neck surgery, while facial plastics had the lowest averages ( P < .001). Conclusions In this study, fellowship-trained faculty had a greater but not significant scholarly impact than nonfellowship faculty. Furthermore, there were significant variations in output among the various subspecialties of otolaryngology. Growing fields, as academic rhinology, are continuing to flourish in robust research productivity and output. This study further demonstrates the potential, growing influence of fellowship training on research involvement and academic advancement within the otolaryngology subspecialties.

Biomedical Microtechnologies beyond Scholarly Impact

The recent tremendous advances in medical technology at the level of academic research have set high expectations for the clinical outcomes they promise to deliver. To the demise of patient hopes, however, the more disruptive and invasive a new technology is, the bigger the gap is separating the conceptualization of a medical device and its adoption into healthcare systems. When technology breakthroughs are reported in the biomedical scientific literature, news focus typically lies on medical implications rather than engineering progress, as the former are of higher appeal to a general readership. While successful therapy and diagnostics are indeed the ultimate goals, it is of equal importance to expose the engineering thinking needed to achieve such results and, critically, identify the challenges that still lie ahead. Here, we would like to provoke thoughts on the following questions, with particular focus on microfabricated medical devices: should research advancing the maturity and reliability of medical technology benefit from higher accessibility and visibility? How can the scientific community encourage and reward academic work on the overshadowed engineering aspects that will facilitate the evolution of laboratory samples into clinical devices?

Assessing Institutionalized Bias

Ideally, higher education systems are meritocracies in which advancement or promotion is based on demonstrated accomplishment and scholarly impact. “Merit” is believed to be associated with innate intellectual ability, dedication to learning and knowledge generation, mastery of a field of study, and recognition by others of comparable training and academic standing. Evaluations of accomplishment are dutifully (and often wishfully) believed to be wholly objective despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, implicit bias and other barriers to inclusion are pervasive within meritocracies. For members of marginalized groups, their social identity may diminish how their accomplishments are perceived and valued; conversely, the accomplishments of those with privileged identities may be over-valued. Moreover, what counts as “valuable” is itself not objective or neutral but rather reflects socially-constructed and culturally-specific priorities. Because academic merit and reward systems, as well as local cultures, can intentionally as well as unintentionally reinforce and hence perpetuate bias and barriers to inclusion, one of our UC Davis ADVANCE initiatives centered on review of all policies and practices affecting faculty advancement. We appraised the potential for bias in hiring, promotion, progression, and retention of faculty. We also evaluated the importance of culture in replicating barriers to inclusion.

Comprehensive Examination of Novel Altmetrics Data in Relation to Citation Based Impact: A Case Study in the Field of Information Sciences

For a long time, the scholarly impact of a researcher has been evaluated by its citation and publication count. As social media becomes a vital part of our lives, scholars use “Altmetrics” platforms to promote their publications through the use of different social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook, CUL (Cite You Like), Mendeley, etc. Twitter is one of the popular and rapidly growing microblogging platforms that is also used in the context of “Altmetrics” as a strong alternative scale to identify quality research work. This research test whether Twitter indicators are helpful to identify quality research work. Our research is based upon a small dataset of 6613 tweets in the field of natural sciences. We compared Twitter indicators (“favorite count and retweet count”) vs. traditional indicator (“citation count”). We also analyzed Twitter text (comments) based on sentiment analysis by using different algorithms. Our research came up with the outcome that neither the favorite count, retweet count, nor the comments were the strong indicators to identify quality research work. These results would help the researchers to understand the role of Twitter indicators to capture quality research work online. Keywords: Altmetrics, Twitter Indicators, Sentiment Analysis, Microblogging