Biology subjects

Maggio, L. A.

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

5 recordsLinked to original sources

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↗

bioRxiv2018

Ethical Shades of Gray: Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

PurposeTo maintain scientific integrity and engender public confidence, research must be conducted responsibly. Whereas scientific misconduct, like data fabrication, is clearly irresponsible and unethical, other behaviors--often referred to as questionable research practices (QRPs)--exploit the ethical shades of gray that color acceptable practice. This study aimed to measure the frequency of self-reported QRPs in a diverse, international sample of health professions education (HPE) researchers.\n\nMethodIn 2017, the authors conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey study. The web-based survey contained 43 QRP items that asked respondents to rate how often they had engaged in various forms of scientific misconduct. The items were adapted from two previously published surveys.\n\nResultsIn total, 590 HPE researchers took the survey. The mean age was 46 years (SD=11.6), and the majority of participants were from the United States (26.4%), Europe (23.2%), and Canada (15.3%). The three most frequently reported QRPs were adding authors to a paper who did not qualify for authorship (60.6%), citing articles that were not read (49.5%), and selectively citing papers to please editors or reviewers (49.4%). Additionally, respondents reported misrepresenting a participants words (6.7%), plagiarizing (5.5%), inappropriately modifying results (5.3%), deleting data without disclosure (3.4%), and fabricating data (2.4%). Overall, 533 (90.3%) respondents reported at least one QRP.\n\nConclusionsNotwithstanding the methodological limitations of survey research, these findings indicate that a substantial proportion of HPE researchers report a range of QRPs. In light of these results, reforms are needed to improve the credibility and integrity of the HPE research enterprise.\n\nO_QD\"Researchers should practice research responsibly. Unfortunately, some do not.\" -Nicholas H. Steneck, 20061\n\nC_QD

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2017

Wikipedia as a gateway to biomedical research: The relative distribution and use of citations in the English Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a gateway to knowledge. However, the extent to which this gateway ends at Wikipedia or continues via supporting citations is unknown. Wikipedias gateway functionality has implications for information design and education, notably in medicine. This study aims to establish benchmarks for the relative distribution and referral (click) rate of citations--as indicated by presence of a Digital Object Identifier (DOI)--from Wikipedia, with a focus on medical citations.\n\nDOIs referred from the English Wikipedia in August 2016 were obtained from Crossref.org. Next, based on a DOIs presence on a WikiProject Medicine page, all DOIs in Wikipedia were categorized as medical (WP:MED) or non-medical (non-WP:MED). Using this categorization, referred DOIs were classified as WP:MED, non-WP:MED, or BOTH, meaning the DOI may have been referred from either category. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.\n\nOut of 5.2 million Wikipedia pages, 4.42% (n=229,857) included at least one DOI. 68,870 were identified as WP:MED, with 22.14% (n=15,250) featuring one or more DOIs. WP:MED pages featured on average 8.88 DOI citations per page, whereas non-WP:MED pages had on average 4.28 DOI citations. For DOIs only on WP:MED pages, a DOI was referred every 2,283 pageviews and for non-WP-MED pages every 2,467 pageviews. DOIs from BOTH pages accounted for 12% (n=58,475) of referrals, making determining a referral rate for BOTH impossible.\n\nWhile these results cannot provide evidence of greater citation referral from WP:MED than non-WP:MED, they do provide benchmarks to assess strategies for changing referral patterns. These changes might include editors adopting new methods for designing and presenting citations or the introduction of teaching strategies that address the value of consulting citations as a tool for extending learning.

scientific communication and education↗