Biology subjects

Artino, A. R.

Publications and source records attributed to Artino, A. R..

13 recordsLinked to original sources

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↗

bioRxiv2023

Expanding Interdisciplinarity: A bibliometric study of medical education using the MEJ-24

IntroductionInterdisciplinary research has been deemed to be critical in solving societys wicked problems, including those relevant to medical education. Medical education research has been assumed to be interdisciplinary. However, researchers have questioned this assumption. The present study, a conceptual replication, provides an analysis using a larger dataset and bibliometric methods to bring more clarity to our understanding on the nature of medical education interdisciplinarity or lack thereof. MethodThe authors retrieved the cited references of all published articles in 24 medical education journals between 2001-2020 from the Web of Science (WoS). We then identified the WoS classifications for the journals of each cited reference. ResultsThe 24 journals published 31,283 articles referencing 723,683 publications. We identified 493,973 (68.3%) of those cited references in 6,618 journals representing 242 categories, which represents 94% of all WoS categories. Close to half of all citations were categorized as "education, scientific disciplines" and "healthcare sciences and services". Over the two decades studied, we observed consistent growth in the number of references in other categories, such as education, educational research, and nursing. Additionally, the variety of categories represented has also increased from 182 to 233 to include a diversity of topics such as business, management, and linguistics. DiscussionThis study corroborates prior work while also expanding it. Medical education research is built upon a limited range of fields referenced. Yet, the growth in categories over time and the ongoing increased diversity of included categories suggests interdisciplinarity that until now has yet to be recognized and represents a changing story.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2022

The Voices of Medical Education Science: Describing the Published Landscape

IntroductionMedical education has been described as a dynamic and growing field, driven in part by its unique body of scholarship. The voices of authors who publish medical education literature have a powerful impact on the discourses of the community. While there have been numerous studies looking at aspects of this literature, there has been no comprehensive view of recent publications. MethodThe authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of all articles published in 24 medical education journals published between 2000-2020 to identify article characteristics, with an emphasis on author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation. This study replicates and greatly expands on two previous investigations by examining all articles published in these core medical education journals. ResultsThe journals published 37,263 articles with the majority of articles published in 2020 (n=3,957, 10.7%) and the least in 2000 (n=711, 1.9%) representing a 456.5% increase. The articles were authored by 139,325 authors of which 62,708 were unique. Males were more prevalent across all authorship positions (n=62,828; 55.7%) than females (n=49,975; 44.3%). Authors listed 154 country affiliations with the United States (n=42,236, 40.4%), United Kingdom (n=12,967, 12.4%), and Canada (n=10,481, 10.0%) most represented. Ninety-three countries (60.4%) were low- or middle-income countries accounting for 9,684 (9.3%) author positions. Few articles were written by multinational teams (n=3,765; 16.2%). Authors listed affiliations with 4,372 unique institutions. Across all author positions, 48,189 authors (46.1%) were affiliated with a top 200 institution, as ranked by the Times Higher Education ranking. DiscussionThere is a relative imbalance of author voices in medical education. If the field values a diversity of perspectives, there is considerable opportunity for improvement.

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

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

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↗