Biology subjects

Ninkov, A.

Publications and source records attributed to Ninkov, A..

3 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↗

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

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↗