Biology subjects

Maggio, L. A.

Publications and source records attributed to Maggio, L. A..

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2024

From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists' awareness of academic controversies

This study sheds light on how journalists respond to evolving debates within academia around topics including research integrity, improper use of metrics to measure research quality and impact, and the risks and benefits of the open science movement. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 19 health and science journalists, we describe journalists awareness of these controversies and the ways in which that awareness, in turn, shapes the practices they use to select, verify, and communicate research. Our findings suggest that journalists perceptions of debates in scholarly communication vary widely, with some displaying a highly critical and nuanced understanding and others presenting a more limited awareness. Those with a more in-depth understanding report closely scrutinizing the research they report, carefully vetting the study design, methodology, and analyses. Those with a more limited awareness are more trusting of the peer review system as a quality control system and more willing to rely on researchers when determining what research to report on and how to vet and frame it. We discuss the benefits and risks of these varied perceptions and practices, highlighting the implications for the nature of the research media coverage that reaches the public.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2024

"The best home for this paper": A qualitative study of how authors select where to submit manuscripts

IntroductionFor academics selecting a target journal to submit a manuscript is a critical decision with career implications. In medical education, research conducted in 2016 found that authors were influenced by multiple factors such as a journals prestige and its mission. However, since this research was conducted the publishing landscape has shifted to include a broader variety of journals, an increased threat of predatory journals, and new publishing models. This study updates and expands upon how medical education authors decide which journal to submit to with the aim of describing the motivational factors and journal characteristics that guide authors decision making. MethodsThe authors conducted five qualitative focus groups in which twenty-two medical education authors and editors participated. During the focus groups participants were engaged in a discussion about how they select a journal to submit their manuscripts. Audio from all focus groups was transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis. ResultsParticipants considered multiple factors when selecting a target journal. Factors included a journals impact, the scope of a journal, journal quality, and technical factors (e.g., word limits). Participants also described how social factors influenced their process and that open access plays a role that could both encourage or deter submission. DiscussionThe findings describe the motivational factors and influential signals that guide authors in their journal selection decision making. These findings confirm, extend, and update journal selection factors reported in medical education and other disciplines. Notably, these findings emphasize the role of social factors, relationships and personal experiences, which were absent from previous work. Additionally, we observed increased consideration of OA and a shift away from an emphasis on journal prestige.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2023

Epistemic oppression of Black women in medical education publishing: A bibliometric study using intersectionality methodology

BackgroundBlack women in academic medicine experience racial and gender discrimination, all while being tasked with improving a flawed system. Representation of Black women in medicine remains low, yet they bear the burden of fostering diversity and mentoring trainees, exacerbating their minority tax and emotional labor, and negatively impacting career progression. ObjectiveTo complement qualitative accounts of Black women authors in the medical education literature with a quantitative account of their representation. DesignAn intersectional methodology employing bibliometric analysis and testimonio reflection. SubjectsUS-based authors of journal articles published in medical education journals between 2000 and 2020. Main measuresAuthor race was determined using a probability-based algorithm incorporating US Census data, and author gender was ascribed using Social Security Administration records. We conducted two negative binomial generalized linear models by first and last author publications. Metadata for each article was retrieved from Web of Science and PubMed to include author names, country of institutional affiliation, and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Results were contextualized via the "testimonio" account of a Black woman author. Key ResultsOf 21,945 unique authors, Black women (and other racially minoritized groups) published far fewer first and last authors papers than white women and men. In addition, major MeSH terms used by Black women authors reveal little overlap of highly ranked medical education topics. The testimonio further narrated struggles with belonging and racial identity. ConclusionBlack women are underrepresented in medical education publishing and feel a lack of belonging. We believe that dismantling oppressive structures in the publishing ecosystem and the field is imperative for achieving equity. Additionally, further experiential accounts are needed to contextualize this quantitative account and understand oppression in medical education publishing.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2022

"It's my job": A qualitative study of the mediatization of science within the scientist-journalist relationship

Through 19 interviews with scientists, this study examines scientists use of media logic and their relationships with journalists using research as the focal point. The authors identified that the scientists shared a basic understanding of media logic classified in three patterns. Two patterns were previously identified by Olesk: 1) adaption (ability to explain research in a simple, engaging fashion but with a reactive approach to journalist interaction) and 2) adoption (proactively create and manage media interactions for strategic aims through a more active use of media logic). The other emerged as a new, third pattern, affiliation (enthusiastic contributors to journalists production practices and desire to engage in public outreach).

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2022

Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists' use and perception of preprints

This qualitative study explores how and why journalists use preprints -- unreviewed research papers -- in their reporting. Through thematic analysis of interviews conducted with 19 health and science journalists in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, it applies a theoretical framework that conceptualizes COVID-19 preprint research as a form of post-normal science, characterized by high scientific uncertainty and societal relevance, urgent need for political decision-making, and value-related policy considerations. Findings suggest that journalists approach the decision to cover preprints as a careful calculation, in which the potential public benefits and the ease of access preprints provided were weighed against risks of spreading misinformation. Journalists described viewing unreviewed studies with extra skepticism and relied on diverse strategies to find, vet, and report on them. Some of these strategies represent standard science journalism, while others, such as labeling unreviewed studies as preprints, mark a departure from the norm. However, journalists also reported barriers to covering preprints, as many felt they lacked the expertise or the time required to fully understand or vet the research. The findings suggest that coverage of preprints is likely to continue post-pandemic, with important implications for scientists, journalists, and the publics who read their work.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2022

Becoming metrics literate: An analysis of brief videos that teach about the h-index

IntroductionAcademia uses scholarly metrics, such as the h-index, to make hiring, promotion, and funding decisions. These high-stakes decisions require that those using scholarly metrics be able to recognize, interpret, critically assess and effectively and ethically use them. This study aimed to characterize educational videos about the h-index to understand available resources and provide recommendations for future educational initiatives. MethodsThe authors analyzed videos on the h-index posted to YouTube. Videos were identified by searching YouTube and were screened by two authors. To code the videos the authors created a coding sheet, which assessed content and presentation style with a focus on the videos educational quality based on Cognitive Load Theory. Two authors coded each video independently with discrepancies resolved by group consensus. ResultsThirty-one videos met inclusion criteria. Twenty-one videos (68%) were screencasts and seven used a "talking head" approach. Twenty-six videos defined the h-index (83%) and provided examples of how to calculate and find it. The importance of the h-index in high-stakes decisions was raised in 14 (45%) videos. Sixteen videos (52%) described caveats about using the h-index, with potential disadvantages to early researchers the most prevalent (n=7; 23%). All videos incorporated various educational approaches with potential impact on viewer cognitive load. Most videos (n=21; 68%) displayed amateurish production quality. DiscussionThe videos featured content with potential to enhance viewers metrics literacies such that many defined the h-index and described its calculation, providing viewers with skills to recognize and interpret the metric. However, less than half described the h-index as an author quality indicator, which has been contested, and caveats about h-index use were inconsistently presented, suggesting room for improvement. While most videos integrated practices to facilitate balancing viewers cognitive load, few (32%) were of professional production quality. Some videos missed opportunities to adopt particular practices that could benefit learning.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2021

Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors

PurposeRecent calls to improve transparency in peer review have prompted examination of many aspects of the peer review process. Peer review systems often allow confidential comments to editors that could reduce transparency to authors, yet this option has escaped scrutiny. Our study explores 1) how reviewers use the confidential comments section and 2) alignment between comments to the editor and comments to authors with respect to content and tone. MethodsOur dataset included 358 reviews of 168 manuscripts submitted between January 1, 2019 and August 24, 2020 to a health professions education journal with a single blind review process. We first identified reviews containing comments to the editor. Then, for the reviews with comments, we used procedures consistent with conventional and directed qualitative content analysis to develop a coding scheme and code comments for content, tone, and section of the manuscript. For reviews in which the reviewer recommended "reject," we coded for alignment between reviewers comments to the editor and to authors. We report descriptive statistics. Results49% of reviews contained comments to the editor (n=176). Most of these comments summarized the reviewers impression of the article (85%), which included explicit reference to their recommended decision (44%) and suitability for the journal (10%). The majority of comments addressed argument quality (56%) or research design/methods/data (51%). The tone of comments tended to be critical (40%) or constructive (34%). For the 48 reviews recommending "reject," the majority of comments to the editor contained content that also appeared in comments to the authors (65%); additional content tended to be irrelevant to the manuscript. Tone frequently aligned (85%). ConclusionFindings indicate variability in how reviewers use the confidential comments to editor section in online peer review systems, though generally the way they use them suggests integrity and transparency to authors.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2021

Delineating Medical Education: Bibliometric Research Approach(es)

BackgroundThe field of medical education remains poorly delineated such that there is no broad consensus of the articles and journals that comprise "the field." This lack of consensus has implications for conducting bibliometric studies and other research designs (e.g., systematic reviews); it also challenges the field to compare citation scores in the field and across others and for an individual to identify themselves as "a medical education researcher." Other fields have utilized bibliometric field delineation, which is the assigning of articles or journals to a certain field in an effort to define that field. ProcessIn this Research Approach, three bibliometric field delineation approaches -- information retrieval, core journals, and journal co-citation -- are introduced. For each approach, the authors describe their attempt to apply it in the medical education context and identify related strengths and weaknesses. Based on co-citation, the authors propose the Medical Education Journal List 24 (MEJ-24), as a starting point for delineating medical education and invite the community to collaborate on improving and potentially expanding this list. PearlsAs a research approach, field delineation is complicated, and there is no clear best way to delineate the field of medical education. However, recent advances in information and computer science provide potentially more fruitful approaches to deal with the complexity of the field. When considering these emerging approaches, researchers should consider collaborating with bibliometricians. Bibliometric approaches rely on available metadata for articles and journals, which necessitates that researchers examine the metadata prior to analysis to understand its strengths and weaknesses, and to assess how this might affect their data interpretation. While using bibliometric approaches for field delineation is valuable, it is important to remember that these techniques are only as good as the research teams interpretation of the data, which suggests that an expanded research approach is needed to better delineate medical education, an approach that includes active discussion within the medical education community.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2021

I, We, and They: A Linguistic and Narrative Exploration of the Authorship Process

IntroductionWhile authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency--a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context--to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines, and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others agency in making authorship decisions. MethodWe conducted a mixed-methods analysis of 24 first authors accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi-author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate, and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a "moral" and "title" for each account; and (3) integration of (1) and (2). ResultsParticipants narrated other authors most frequently as main clause subjects (n = 191), then themselves (I; n = 151), inanimate nouns (it, the paper; n = 146), and author team (we; n = 105). Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first authors action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four sub-types, e.g., supported, contested, task-based, negotiated. DiscussionThis study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point--the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step--the enacted and narrated approach to the game.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2020

From amazing work to I beg to differ - analysis of bioRxiv preprints that received one public comment till September 2019

While early commenting on studies is seen as one of the advantages of preprints, the nature of such comments, and the people who post them, have not been systematically explored. We analysed comments posted between 21 May 2015 and 9 September 2019 for 1,983 bioRxiv preprints that received only one comment. Sixty-nine percent of comments were posted by non-authors (n=1,366), and 31% by preprint authors (n=617). Twelve percent of non-author comments (n=168) were full review reports traditionally found during journal review, while the rest most commonly contained praises (n=577, 42%), suggestions (n=399, 29%), or criticisms (n=226, 17%). Authors comments most commonly contained publication status updates (n=354, 57%), additional study information (n=158, 26%), or solicited feedback for the preprints (n=65, 11%). Our study points to the value of preprint commenting, but further studies are needed to determine the role that comments play in shaping preprint versions and eventual journal publications.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2020

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to characterize the extent, range, and nature of scoping reviews published in core medical education journals. In so doing, the authors identify areas for improvement in the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews, and highlight opportunities for future research. MethodThe authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1999 through April 2020 in 14 medical education journals. From each review, the authors extracted and summarized key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions, and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. Rationales and research questions were mapped to the reasons for conducting a scoping review, as described by Arksey and OMalley. ResultsOne hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average 10.1 scoping reviews (MED=4, SD=13.08) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n=42) in 13 of the included 14 journals reviewed. Academic Medicine published the most scoping reviews (n=28) overall. Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, including to: summarize and disseminate research findings (n=77); examine the extent, range, and nature of research activity in a given area (n=74); and to analyze an emerging topic or heterogenous literature base (n=46). In 11 reviews there was alignment between the rationales for the scoping review and the stated research questions. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with only a minority of authors publishing a protocol (n=2) or including stakeholders (n=20). Authors identified several shortcomings of scoping review methodology, including being unable to critically assess the included studies. ConclusionsMedical educators are increasingly conducting scoping reviews with a desire to characterize the literature on a topic. There is room for improvement in the reporting of scoping reviews, including the alignment of research questions, the creation and publishing of protocols, and the inclusion of external stakeholders in published works.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2020

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis

Purpose This bibliometric analysis maps the landscape of knowledge syntheses in medical education. It provides scholars with a roadmap for understanding where the field has been and where it might go in the future. In particular, this analysis details the venues in which knowledge syntheses are published, the types of syntheses conducted, citation rates they produce, and altmetric attention they garner.Method In 2020, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of knowledge syntheses published in 14 core medical education journals from 1999 to 2019. To characterize the studies, metadata was extracted from Pubmed, Web of Science, Altmetrics Explorer, and Unpaywall.Results The authors analyzed 963 knowledge syntheses representing 3.1% of total articles published (n=30,597). On average, 45.9 knowledge syntheses were published annually (SD=35.85, Median=33), and there was an overall 2,620% increase in the number of knowledge syntheses published from 1999 to 2019. The journals each published, on average, a total of 68.8 knowledge syntheses (SD=67.2, Median=41) with Medical Education publishing the most (n=189; 19%). Twenty-one knowledge synthesis types were identified; the most prevalent types were systematic reviews (n=341; 35.4%) and scoping reviews (n=88; 9.1%). Knowledge syntheses were cited an average of 53.80 times (SD=107.12, Median=19) and received a mean Altmetric Attention Score of 14.12 (SD=37.59, Median=6).Conclusions There has been considerable growth in knowledge syntheses in medical education over the past 20 years, contributing to medical education’s evidence base. Beyond this increase in volume, researchers have introduced methodological diversity in these publications, and the community has taken to social media to share knowledge syntheses. Implications for the field, including the impact of synthesis types and their relationship to knowledge translation, are discussed.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.View Full Text

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

When will I get my paper back? A replication study of publication timelines for health professions education research

Biomedical researchers have lamented the lengthy timelines from manuscript submission to publication and highlighted potential detrimental effects on scientific progress and scientists careers. In 2015, Himmelstein identified the mean time from manuscript submission to acceptance in biomedicine as approximately 100 days. The length of publication timelines in health professions education (HPE) is currently unknown.\n\nThis study replicates Himmelsteins work with a sample of 14 HPE journals published between 2008-2018. Using PubMed, 19,182 article citations were retrieved. Open metadata for each was downloaded, including the date the article was received by the journal, the date the authors resubmitted revisions, the date the journal accepted the article, and date of entry into PubMed. Journals without publication history metadata were excluded.\n\nPublication history data was available for 55% (n=8) of the journals sampled. The publication histories of 4,735 (25%) articles were analyzed. Mean time from: (1) author submission to journal acceptance was 180.93 days (SD=103.89), (2) author submission to posting on PubMed was 263.55 days (SD=157.61), and (3) journal acceptance to posting on PubMed was 83.15 days (SD=135.72).\n\nThis study presents publication metadata for journals that openly provide it--a first step towards understanding publication timelines in HPE. Findings confirm the replicability of the original study, and the limited data suggest that, in comparison to biomedical scientists broadly, medical educators may experience longer wait times for article acceptance and publication. Reasons for these delays are currently unknown and deserve further study; such work would be facilitated by increased public access to journal metadata.\n\nWhat this article addsPublication delays can negatively impact science and researchers careers. A previous study, in biomedicine, leveraged publicly available data to identify a 100-day waiting period between manuscript submission and acceptance. However, this study provides limited information on timelines for health professions education (HPE) articles. Thus, the current study replicates the original investigation with publication timeline data for eight HPE journals, which make their data publicly accessible, finding the mean time from submission to acceptance to be 181 days. Reasons for these delays are currently unknown and deserve further study; such work would be facilitated by increased public access to journal metadata.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

To Tweet or Not to Tweet, That is the Question: A Randomized Trial of Twitter Effects on Article Engagement in Medical Education

Many medical education journals use Twitter to garner attention for their articles. The purpose of this study was to test the effects of tweeting on article page views and downloads.\n\nThe authors conducted a randomized trial using Academic Medicine articles published in 2015. Beginning in February through May 2018, one article per day was randomly assigned to a Twitter (case) or control group. Daily, an individual tweet was generated for each article in the Twitter group that included the title, #MedEd, and a link to the article. The link delivered users to the articles landing page, which included immediate access to the HTML full text and a PDF link. The authors extracted HTML page views and PDF downloads from the publisher. To assess differences in page views and downloads between cases and controls, a time-centered approach was used, with outcomes measured at 1, 7, and 30 days.\n\nIn total, 189 articles (94 cases, 95 controls) were analyzed. After days 1 and 7, there were no statistically significant differences between cases and controls on any metric. On day 30, HTML page views exhibited a 63% increase for cases (M=14.72, SD=63.68) when compared to controls (M=9.01, SD=14.34; incident rate ratio=1.63, p=0.01). There were no differences between cases and controls for PDF downloads on day 30.\n\nContrary to the authors hypothesis, only one statistically significant difference in page views between the Twitter and control groups was found. These findings provide preliminary evidence that after 30 days a tweet can have a small positive effect on article page views.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

A qualitative study exploring researchers’ perspectives on authorship decision-making

BackgroundAuthorship has major implications for a researchers promotion and tenure, future funding, and career opportunities. Due in part to these high-stakes consequences, many journals require authors to meet formal authorship criteria, e.g. the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship. Yet on multiple surveys, researchers admit to violating these criteria, suggesting that authorship practices are a complex issue. Using qualitative methods, we aimed to unpack the complexities inherent in researchers conceptualizations of questionable authorship practices and to identify factors that make researchers vulnerable to engaging in such practices.\n\nMethods and FindingsWe conducted an interview study with a purposeful sample of 26 North American medical education researchers holding MD (n=17) and PhD (n=9) degrees and representing a range of career stages. We asked participants to respond to two vignettes - one portraying honorary authorship, the other describing an author order scenario - and then to describe related authorship experiences. Through thematic analysis, we found that participants, even when familiar with ICMJE criteria, conceptualized questionable authorship practices in various ways and articulated several ethical gray areas. We identified personal and situational factors, including hierarchy, resource dependence, institutional culture and gender, that contributed to participants vulnerability to and involvement in questionable authorship practices. Participants described negative instances of questionable authorship practices as well as situations in which these practices occurred for virtuous purposes. Participants rationalized that engagement in questionable authorship practices, while technically violating authorship criteria, could be reasonable when the practices seemed to benefit science and junior researchers. Participants described negative instances of questionable authorship practices as well as situations in which these practices occurred for virtuous purposes. Participants rationalized that engagement in questionable authorship practices, while technically violating authorship criteria, could be reasonable when the practices seemed to benefit science and junior researchers.\n\nConclusionAuthorship guidelines, such as the ICMJE criteria, portray authorship decisions as black and white, effectively sidestepping key dimensions that create ethical shades of gray. Our findings show that researchers generally recognize these shades of gray and in some cases acknowledge breaking or bending the rules themselves. Sometimes, their flexibility in applying rules of authorship is driven by benevolent aims that align with their own values or prevailing norms such as generosity and inclusivity. Other times, their participation in questionable authorship practices is framed not as a choice, but rather as a consequence of their vulnerability to individual or system factors beyond their control. Taken together, the findings reported here provide insights that may help researchers and institutions move beyond recognition of the challenges of authorship and contribute to the development of informed, evidence-based solutions for questionable authorship practices.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2018

Making headlines: An analysis of US government-funded cancer research mentioned in online media

BackgroundConsiderable resources are devoted to producing knowledge about cancer, which in turn is disseminated to policymakers, practitioners, and the public. Online media are a key dissemination channel for cancer research. Yet which cancer research receives media attention is not well understood. Understanding the characteristics of journal articles that receive media attention is crucial to optimize research dissemination.\n\nMethodsThis cross-sectional study examines journal articles on cancer funded by the US government published in 2016, using data from PubMed and Altmetric to determine whether an article received online media attention. Frequencies and proportions were calculated to describe the cancer types and continuum stages covered in journal articles.\n\nResults16.8% of articles published on US government-funded research were covered in the media. Published journal articles addressed all common cancers. Roughly one-fourth to one-fifth of journal articles within each cancer category received online media attention. Media mentions were disproportionate to actual burden of each cancer type (ie, incidence and mortality), with breast cancer articles receiving the most media mentions. Cancer prevention and control articles received less online media attention than diagnosis or therapy articles.\n\nConclusionFindings revealed a mismatch between prevalent cancers and cancers highlighted in the media. Further, journal articles on cancer control and prevention received less media attention than other cancer continuum stages. Media mentions were not proportional to actual public cancer burden nor volume of scientific publications in each cancer category. Results highlight a need for continued research on the role of media, especially online media, in research dissemination.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2018

Factors Associated with Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

IntroductionEngaging in scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) is a noted problem across fields, including health professions education (HPE). To mitigate these practices, other disciplines have enacted strategies based on researcher characteristics and practice factors. Thus, to inform HPE, this article seeks to determine which researcher characteristics and practice factors, if any, might explain the frequency of irresponsible research practices.\n\nMethodIn 2017, a cross-sectional survey of HPE researchers was conducted. The survey included 66 items derived from two published QRP surveys and a publication pressure scale adapted from the literature. The study outcome was the self-reported misconduct frequency score, which is a weighted mean score for each respondent on all misconduct and QRP items. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression analysis.\n\nResults and DiscussionIn total, 590 researchers took the survey. Results from the regression analysis indicated that researcher age had a negative association with the misconduct frequency score (b = -.01, t = -2.91, p<.05) suggesting that older researchers tended to have lower misconduct frequency scores. Publication pressure (b = .20, t = 7.82, p<.001) and number of publications (b = .001, t = 3.27, p<.01) had positive associations with the misconduct frequency score. The greater the publication pressure or the more publications a researcher reported, the higher the misconduct frequency score. Overall, the explanatory variables accounted for 21% of the variance in the misconduct frequency score, and publication pressure was the strongest predictor. These findings provide an evidence base from which HPE might tailor strategies to address scientific misconduct and QRPs.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2018

Exploring the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures of dissemination in health professions education

Researchers, funders, and institutions are interested in understanding and quantifying research dissemination and impact, particularly related to communicating with the public. Traditionally, citations have been a primary impact measure; however, citations can be slow to accrue and focus on academic use. Recently altmetrics, which track alternate dissemination forms (e.g., social media) have been suggested as a complement to citation-based metrics. This study examines the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures: journal article citations and access counts.\n\nThe researchers queried Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer for articles published in HPE journals between 2013-2015. They identified 2,486 articles with altmetrics. Data were analyzed using negative binomial and linear regression models.\n\nBlogging was associated with the greatest increase in citations (13% increase), whereas Tweets (1.2%) and Mendeley (1%) were associated with smaller increases. Journal impact factor (JIF) was associated with a 21% increase in citations. Publicly accessible articles were associated with a 19% decrease, but the interactive effect between accessible articles and JIF was associated with a 12% increase. When examining access counts, publicly accessible articles had an increase of 170 access counts whereas blogging was associated with a decrease of 87 accesses.\n\nThis study suggests that several altmetrics outlets are positively associated with citations, and that public accessibility, holding all other independent variables constant, is positively related to article access. Given the scientific communitys evolving focus on dissemination--including to the public--these findings have implications for stakeholders, providing insight into the factors that may improve citations and access of articles.

scientific communication and education↗