Biology subjects

Costello, J. A.

Publications and source records attributed to Costello, J. A..

4 recordsLinked to original sources

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↗

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↗

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↗