Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities

What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide

Increasingly, policies are being introduced to reward and recognise open research practices, while the adoption of such practices into research routines is being facilitated by many grassroots initiatives. However, despite this widespread endorsement and support, as well as various efforts led by early career researchers, open research is yet to be widely adopted. For open research to become the norm, initiatives should engage academics from all career stages, particularly senior academics (namely senior lecturers, readers, professors) given their routine involvement in determining the quality of research. Senior academics, however, face unique challenges in implementing policy changes and supporting grassroots initiatives. Given that-like all researchers-senior academics are motivated by self-interest, this paper lays out three feasible steps that senior academics can take to improve the quality and productivity of their research, that also serve to engender open research. These steps include changing (a) hiring criteria, (b) how scholarly outputs are credited, and (c) how we fund and publish in line with open research principles. The guidance we provide is accompanied by material for further reading.

BJA Open: a new open access journal for anaesthesiology, critical care, and pain medicine

BJA Open is a new open access journal to complement British Journal of Anaesthesia. This editorial describes the rationale for the journal and the breadth of content it is seeking to attract. As with other BJA titles, BJA Open conforms to the highest standards of editorial and publication practice, and it aims to provide sector-leading author experience combined with reliable peer-reviewed content for the reader.

Identifying potential barriers and solutions to patient partner compensation (payment) in research

Research that engages patients on the research team is often supported by grant funding from different organizations and, in some cases, principal investigators (who control the grant funding) provide patient partners with compensation (or payment) for their contributions. However, we have noted a gap in resources that identify and address barriers to compensating patient partners (no matter the size, degree or length of their engagement). In this paper, we present thoughts and experiences related to barriers to compensating patient partners with the goal of helping individuals identify and find solutions to these obstacles. Based on our experiences as individuals who live with chronic conditions and are patient partners, and those who are researchers who engage patient partners, we have identified eight barriers to compensating patient partners. We discuss each of these barriers: lack of awareness about patient partnership, institutional inflexibility, policy guidance from funders, compensation not prioritized in research budgets, leadership hesitancy to create a new system, culture of research teams, preconceived beliefs about the skills and abilities of patient partners, and expectations placed on patient partners. We demonstrate these barriers with real life examples and we offer some solutions. To further demonstrate these barriers, we ask readers to reflect on some scenarios that present realistic parallel situations to those that patient partners face. The intention is to illustrate, through empathy or putting yourself in someone else's shoes, how we might all do better with respect to institutional barriers related to patient partner compensation. Last, we issue a call to action to share resources and identify actions to overcome these barriers from which we will create an online resource repository.

Citation impact and social media visibility of Great Barrington and John Snow signatories for COVID-19 strategy

OBJECTIVE

The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) and the John Snow Memorandum (JSM), each signed by numerous scientists, have proposed hotly debated strategies for handling the COVID-19 pandemic. The current analysis aimed to examine whether the prevailing narrative that GBD is a minority view among experts is true.

METHODS

The citation impact and social media presence of the key GBD and JSM signatories was assessed. Citation data were obtained from Scopus using a previously validated composite citation indicator that incorporated also coauthorship and author order and ranking was against all authors in the same Science-Metrix scientific field with at least five full papers. Random samples of scientists from the longer lists of signatories were also assessed. The number of Twitter followers for all key signatories was also tracked.

RESULTS

Among the 47 key GBD signatories, 20, 19 and 21, respectively, were top-cited authors for career impact, recent single-year (2019) impact or either. For comparison, among the 34 key JSM signatories, 11, 14 and 15, respectively, were top cited. Key signatories represented 30 different scientific fields (9 represented in both documents, 17 only in GBD and 4 only in JSM). In a random sample of n=30 scientists among the longer lists of signatories, five in GBD and three in JSM were top cited. By April 2021, only 19/47 key GBD signatories had personal Twitter accounts versus 34/34 of key JSM signatories; 3 key GBD signatories versus 10 key JSM signatories had >50 000 Twitter followers and extraordinary Kardashian K-indices (363-2569). By November 2021, four key GBD signatories versus 13 key JSM signatories had >50 000 Twitter followers.

CONCLUSIONS

Both GBD and JSM include many stellar scientists, but JSM has far more powerful social media presence and this may have shaped the impression that it is the dominant narrative.

Evidence and consequences of academic drift in the field of dental research: A bibliometric analysis 2000-2015

The mission of academic excellence has resulted in a science system that incentivises publications within high impact, often basic science journals, and less in application-oriented journals. For the dental research field this so-called academic drift can result in a research portfolio that moves away from research that serves dental healthcare. Therefore, we examined if and how academic drift has changed the dental research field. Web of Science data were used to develop a network map for dental research containing journal clusters that show similar citation behavior. From the year 2000 up to 2015, we explored the intensity of knowledge exchange between the different clusters through citation relations. Next, we analyzed changes in research focus of dental research institutes in seven countries, in dental research, clinical medicine research, basic science, public health research and other fields. Within the citation network, 85.5% of all references in dental journals concern references to other dental journals. The knowledge contribution of non-dental research fields to dental research was limited during the studied period. At the same time, the share of output of dental research institutes in dental research has declined. The research activity of the dental research institutes increased mainly in basic science while the knowledge input from basic science into dental research did not increase. Our findings suggest that the dental research portfolio is influenced by academic drift. This academic drift has increased the disbalance towards basic science, and presents a challenge for the scientific progress in dental healthcare services.

Credit and Recognition for Contributions to Data-Sharing Platforms Among Cohort Holders and Platform Developers in Europe: Interview Study

BACKGROUND

The European Commission is funding projects that aim to establish data-sharing platforms. These platforms are envisioned to enhance and facilitate the international sharing of cohort data. Nevertheless, broad data sharing may be restricted by the lack of adequate recognition for those who share data.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to describe in depth the concerns about acquiring credit for data sharing within epidemiological research.

METHODS

A total of 17 participants linked to European Union-funded data-sharing platforms were recruited for a semistructured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Interviewees argued that data sharing within international projects could challenge authorship guidelines in multiple ways. Some respondents considered that the acquisition of credit for articles with extensive author lists could be problematic in some instances, such as for junior researchers. In addition, universities may be critical of researchers who share data more often than leading research. Some considered that the evaluation system undervalues data generators and specialists. Respondents generally looked favorably upon alternatives to the current evaluation system to potentially ameliorate these issues.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation system might impede data sharing because it mainly focuses on first and last authorship and undervalues the contributor's work. Further movement of crediting models toward contributorship could potentially address this issue. Appropriate crediting mechanisms that are better aligned with the way science ought to be conducted in the future need to be developed.

Rigour and reproducibility in Canadian research: call for a coordinated approach

Shortcomings in the rigour and reproducibility of research have become well-known issues and persist despite repeated calls for improvement. A coordinated effort among researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, learned societies, and regulators may be the most effective way of tackling these issues. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) has fostered collaboration across various stakeholders in research and are creating the infrastructure necessary to advance rigorous and reproducible research practices across the United Kingdom. Other Reproducibility Networks, modelled on UKRN, are now emerging in other countries. Canada could benefit from a comparable network to unify the voices around research quality and maximize the value of Canadian research.

Can Any Drug Be Repurposed for Cancer Treatment? A Systematic Assessment of the Scientific Literature

Drug repurposing is a complementary pathway for introducing new drugs against cancer. Broad systematic assessments of ongoing repurposing efforts in oncology are lacking, but may be helpful to critically appraise current and future efforts. Hence, we conducted a systematic PubMed search encompassing 100 frequently prescribed and 100 randomly selected drugs, and assessed the published preclinical anti-cancer effects. Furthermore, we evaluated all the identified original articles for methodological quality. We found reports indicating anti-cancer effects for 138/200 drugs, especially among frequently prescribed drugs (81/100). Most were reports suggesting single-agent activity of the drugs (61%). Basic information, such as the cell line used or control treatments utilized, were reported consistently, while more detailed information (e.g., excluded data) was mostly missing. The majority (56%) of in vivo studies reported randomizing animals, while only few articles stated that the experiments were conducted in a blinded fashion. In conclusion, we found promising reports of anti-cancer effects for the majority of the assessed drugs, but speculate that many of them are false-positive findings. Reward systems should be adjusted to encourage the widespread usage of high reporting quality and bias-reducing methodologies, aiming to decrease the rate of false-positive results, and thereby increasing the trust in the findings.

Open science failed to penetrate academic hiring practices: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current hiring practices of academic institutions around the world, with regard to the mention of advertisements for Open Science (OS) in research based, faculty and postdoctoral positions.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study, using 189 global institutions from the Center for Science and Technology (CSTS) Leiden ranking of world universities of 2017, including the U15 Group (Canadian Research-Intensive Universities), and five self-selected supplementary institutions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The main outcome measure for our study is the level of OS in job advertisements, assessed using the Modified Open Science Modular Scheme (MOMS).

RESULTS

After assessing 305 job advertisements for academic positions in 91 institutions, only 2 (0.6%) had any explicit mention of OS in their job advertisements on the MOMS. The sample assessed the level of open science for 39.0% Associate/Assistant professor positions, 30.8% Researcher/Postdoctoral fellow positions, and 18.7% of Tenured positions. The remaining 11.5% were for positions such as lectureship, research associate, chair, dean, director and other.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the need for increased recognition of OS as a characteristic in research-active job advertisements. As evident in the alarmingly low percentage of job advertisements that mentioned OS (0.6%), the movement towards enhanced OS profiles across academic institutions is highly encouraged. This can be achieved through increased recognition of OS in research job advertisements and demonstrating the means in which institutions promote OS such as, encouraging preprints, publishing in open access journals, and the importance of data sharing.

Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices

A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.

Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices

A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.

Faculty peer review of teaching taskforce: A quantitative descriptive research study for the peer review process

BACKGROUND

Peer review of teaching is important for both the faculty and student experience. Enhanced awareness of student learning experiences and a deeper reflection on teaching makes this process attractive to faculty leaders, staff and students. Evidence suggests that teachers who are reviewed gain confidence, anticipate improvement in teaching and are inclined to discuss their teaching with colleagues in the future.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development of a peer review of teaching process by the Faculty Peer Review of Teaching Taskforce at a school of nursing.

METHODS

A five-step Design for Six Sigma methodology was used and includes: Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, Verify (DMADV). In keeping with this methodology we: (1) established a Faculty Peer Review of Teaching Taskforce; (2) conducted a literature review on best practices; (3) reviewed peer institution practices; and (4) surveyed faculty to obtain their perspectives on the qualities of good teaching and the peer review of teaching process. Twenty-seven of the 68 full-time faculty members returned Qualtrics surveys (return rate = 39.7%).

RESULTS

Review of the literature yielded four major themes, including post-observation discussion and systematic assignment of peer review pairs. Variation in practices across institutions was identified, from formal structured processes, to peer review conducted only in special circumstances. Survey findings revealed that faculty members overwhelmingly endorse the qualities of good teaching, agree that the peer review process should be required, and that peer reviewers should have several years of teaching experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Our faculty were supportive of a peer review teaching process. As teaching demands continue to increase given the evolving complexities of nursing care, teaching platforms (i.e. online, hybrid), and diverse student body, we hope the process we develop may serve as a model for other higher education schools to enhance and maintain excellence in teaching for both the faculty and student experience.

How faculty define quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals

Despite the calls for change, there is significant consensus that when it comes to evaluating publications, review, promotion, and tenure processes should aim to reward research that is of high "quality," is published in "prestigious" journals, and has an "impact." Nevertheless, such terms are highly subjective and present challenges to ascertain precisely what such research looks like. Accordingly, this article responds to the question: how do faculty from universities in the United States and Canada define the terms quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals? We address this question by surveying 338 faculty members from 55 different institutions in the U.S. and Canada. While relying on self-reported definitions that are not linked to their behavior, this study’s findings highlight that faculty often describe these distinct terms in overlapping ways. Additionally, results show that marked variance in definitions across faculty does not correspond to demographic characteristics. This study’s results highlight the subjectivity of common research terms and the importance of implementing evaluation regimes that do not rely on ill-defined concepts and may be context specific.

Foreign-born Counselor Educators: Strengths, Challenges, and Areas of Support

This article features strengths and challenges indicated by foreign-born counselor educators in programs accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. To gain a deeper understanding of this topic, we utilized a convergent parallel mixed methods design with merged quantitative and qualitative findings. Quantitative results indicated that foreign-born faculty (FBF) experienced more strengths in the personal, spiritual, and health domains while facing more challenges in the social, political, and financial domains. In addition, a thematic analysis identified three overarching themes reflecting FBF’s strengths, challenges, areas of support, and the impact of COVID-19: (a) adjustment as a foreign-born individual in the United States, (b) immigration status and procedures, and (c) working as a foreign-born faculty in counselor education. This article presents implications for FBF and stakeholders seeking to support this population, while also suggesting recommendations for future research.

Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society

Covid-19 research made it painfully clear that the scandal of poor medical research, as denounced by Altman in 1994, persists today. The overall quality of medical research remains poor, despite longstanding criticisms. The problems are well known, but the research community fails to properly address them. We suggest that most problems stem from an underlying paradox: although methodology is undeniably the backbone of high-quality and responsible research, science consistently undervalues methodology. The focus remains more on the destination (research claims and metrics) than on the journey. Notwithstanding, research should serve society more than the reputation of those involved. While we notice that many initiatives are being established to improve components of the research cycle, these initiatives are too disjointed. The overall system is monolithic and slow to adapt. We assert that top-down action is needed from journals, universities, funders and governments to break the cycle and put methodology first. These actions should involve the widespread adoption of registered reports, balanced research funding between innovative, incremental and methodological research projects, full recognition and demystification of peer review, improved methodological review of reports, adherence to reporting guidelines, and investment in methodological education and research. Currently, the scientific enterprise is doing a major disservice to patients and society.

Medical journal requirements for clinical trial data sharing: Ripe for improvement

Florian Naudet and co-authors discuss strengthening requirements for sharing clinical trial data.

Academic Promotion of Physicians in Medical Schools: A Special Focus on Primary Health Care in Taiwan

The quality and quantity of papers published in journals play a crucial role in achieving an academic promotion in medical schools. Reports on the criteria for promotion and their impact on different specialties, especially on primary health care, which has low research output, are rare. We investigated the scoring systems generally adopted for academic promotion at most medical schools in Taiwan. The weighted scores were derived from the multiplication of weights from categories of paper, journal impact factor, or ranking in a certain category by impact factor, and author order. To determine the thresholds of papers required for different levels of promotion, we took papers in the highest- or lowest-ranked journals in the primary health care category in 2019 Journal Citation Reports as examples. Considering publications in the highest-ranked journals, a median of 4.6 first or corresponding author papers were required for a professorship, as well as 3.3 for an associate professorship, and 2.5 for an assistant professorship. In contrast, a median of 30, 20, and 13.5 papers in the lowest-ranked journals was required for the corresponding positions. Thus, academic promotions for primary health care educators in Taiwan are highly demanding. The detrimental effects of scoring systems deserve further research.

Information-Seeking Behaviors of Medical Faculty at a Qatar Academic Medical Institution

Medical faculty are among the most important user groups at any academic medical library. Knowing how medical faculty identify, access, and use information is important for collection development and instruction. This study found that medical faculty at an institution in Qatar identified information access and use as vital in their professional duties. However, they also noted limitations that warrant attention by the library to better serve this user group. Further, the results of this study were compared to a similar study of medical faculty in the United States, with noted similarities and differences in their access and use of information.

COVID-19 and the research scholarship ecosystem: help!

OBJECTIVES

Data sharing practices remain elusive in biomedicine. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the problems associated with the lack of data sharing. The objective of this article is to draw attention to the problem and possible ways to address it.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This article examines some of the current open access and data sharing practices at biomedical journals and funders. In the context of COVID-19 the consequences of these practices is also examined.

RESULTS

Despite the best of intentions on the part of funders and journals, COVID-19 biomedical research is not open. Academic institutions need to incentivize and reward data sharing practices as part of researcher assessment. Journals and funders need to implement strong polices to ensure that data sharing becomes a reality. Patients support sharing of their data.

CONCLUSION

Biomedical journals, funders and academic institutions should act to require stronger adherence to data sharing policies.

REPORT-PFP: a consensus from the International Patellofemoral Research Network to improve REPORTing of quantitative PatelloFemoral Pain studies

Patellofemoral pain is a common and often debilitating musculoskeletal condition. Clinical translation and evidence synthesis of patellofemoral pain research are compromised by heterogenous and often inadequately reported study details. This consensus statement and associated checklist provides standards for REPORTing of quantitative PatelloFemoral Pain (REPORT-PFP) research to enhance clinical translation and evidence synthesis, and support clinician engagement with research and data collection. A three-stage Delphi process was initiated at the 2015 International Patellofemoral Research Network (iPFRN) retreat. An initial e-Delphi activity (n=24) generated topics and items, which were refined at the 2017 iPFRN retreat, and voted on prior to and following the 2019 iPFRN retreat (n=51 current and past retreat participants). Voting criteria included 'strongly recommended' (essential), 'recommended' (encouraged) and uncertain/unsure. An item was included in the checklist if ≥70% respondents voted 'recommended'. Items receiving ≥70% votes for 'strongly recommended' were labelled as such. The final REPORT-PFP checklist includes 31 items (11 strongly recommended, 20 recommended), covering (i) demographics (n=2,4); (ii) baseline symptoms and previous treatments (n=3,7); (iii) outcome measures (2,4); (iv) outcomes measure description (n=1,2); (v) clinical trial methodology (0,3) and (vi) reporting study results (n=3,0). The REPORT-PFP checklist is ready to be used by researchers and clinicians. Strong stakeholder engagement from clinical academics during development means consistent application by the international patellofemoral pain research community is likely. Checklist adherence will improve research accessibility for clinicians and enhance future evidence synthesis.

Meta-epidemiological study of publication integrity, and quality of conduct and reporting of randomized trials included in a systematic review of low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively describe the quality of conduct, reporting, and publication integrity characteristics for all trials included in a large Cochrane review, comparing those published by presumed predatory publishers with those published by nonpredatory publishers.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.

STUDY SELECTION

Two hundred seventy-nine studies (25,704 participants) eligible for the recent update of the "Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain" Cochrane review were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study and manuscript characteristics, including predatory publication status and other quality and integrity characteristics were extracted along with treatment effect.

RESULTS

Nine percent of trials included were in presumed predatory publications; 12% in the period since 2010. We found frequency of other concerning characteristics to range from low (eg, plagiarism, 5%) to common (eg, lack of evidence of trial registration or protocol publication [75%]; insufficient sample size [84%]) in included studies. Studies published by presumed predatory publishers consistently had inferior conduct, reporting and publication integrity characteristics. Presumed predatory publication was associated with missing conflict of interest statement (OR 7.6, 95% CI 3.0-19.1), inadequate follow-up duration (OR 11.2, 95% CI 3.7-33.7), incomplete study methods (OR 12.1, 95% CI 2.8-52.2) and baseline reporting (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.6-11.7), and high risk of bias (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-6.3). All (100%) presumed predatory publications were missing trial registrations (vs. 72%) and had inadequate sample sizes (vs. 82%). Trials published in presumed predatory journals did not appear to have inflated effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Predatory publishers pose a distinct challenge to the consumption and synthesis of randomized controlled trials. More work is needed in other clinical areas to understand the potential impact of randomized controlled trials published in predatory publications, and as a result, the potential impact on evidence from systematic reviews that include these studies.

Factors to improve academic publishing success of physicians engaged in scientific research

INTRODUCTION

Scientific evidence in medicine is based on data generated from research. Recently, the number of scientifically active physicians has decreased, which has led to the development of the Clinician Scientist Programs. To better structure and focus the research of young physicians, we aimed to investigate the impact of collaborations and other factors on the quality and output of scientific publications.

METHODS

The abstracts of three annual congresses of the German Society of Urology were systematically analysed regarding content, collaborations, and study design. Full-text publications and journals were identified through a MEDLINE® search. Impact factors (IFs) were identified using Journal Citation Reports™. To identify factors which predict publication and IFs, χ² and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the best model for publication success for an abstract as well as the achievement of a high IF.

RESULTS

1,074 abstracts were reviewed. The publication rate of subsequent peer-reviewed full-text publications was 52.5%. Collaborations with at least one institution (odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48-2.76, p <0.0001), statistical analysis (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.41-2.60, p <0.0001), study design (prospective vs. retrospective: OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06-1.93, p=0.021), and national collaborations (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.04-1.98, p=0.029) increased the likelihood of publication in a peer-reviewed journal in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Experimental design (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.32-5.84, p=0.007), international collaborations (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.23-4.15, p=0.009), oncologic topics (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.23-3.07, p=0.005), prostate disease (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08-2.84, p=0.023), and statistical analysis (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.06-2.64, p=0.026) were associated with a higher IF.

CONCLUSION

Abstracts resulting from collaborative research projects had a higher likelihood of subsequent full-text publication and a higher IF. More full-text publications were reported when abstracts included a statistical analysis. Hence, intensive networking (e. g. at congresses and workshops) of researching physicians as well as statistical/biometrical classes could be key factors to improve academic success.

The how and why of producing policy relevant research: perspectives of Australian childhood obesity prevention researchers and policy makers

BACKGROUND

Understanding why research is conducted may help address the under-utilisation of research. This study examined the reasons for childhood obesity prevention knowledge production in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, and the factors influencing research choices from the perspective of the researchers and health policy agencies contributing to the research.

METHODS

A literature search of SCOPUS and ISI Web of Knowledge (affiliation and key word searches) was conducted to compile a database of NSW childhood obesity research outputs, published between 2000 and 2015 (n = 543). Descriptive statistics were used to quantify outputs by research type, differentiating measurement, descriptive, and intervention research, systematic reviews and other publications. Interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers drawn from the database (n = 13) and decision makers from health policy agencies who funded and contributed to childhood obesity research in NSW (n = 15). Researcher interviews examined views about societal impacts, why and under what circumstances the research was conducted. Decision-maker interviews examined policy agency research investment and how research was used in decision making. Content analysis and a thematic approach was used to analyse the interview transcripts.

RESULTS

The research in this case was conducted for mix of reasons including those traditionally associated with academic inquiry, as well as intentions to influence policy and practice. Differences in funding mechanisms, administrative and employment arrangements, and 'who' initiated the research, created differing incentives and perspectives for knowledge production. Factors associated with the characteristics and experience of the individuals involved also influenced goals, as did the type of research conducted. Policy agencies played a role in directing research to address policy needs.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study confirm that researchers are strongly influenced by their working environment. Funding schemes and other incentives to support policy relevant knowledge production are important. Contextual factors such as policy priorities, policy-driven research funding and the embedded nature or strong connections between some researchers and the policy agencies involved, are likely to have influenced the extent to which policy goals were reported in this study.

Will COVID-19 result in a giant step backwards for women in academic science?

COVID-19 has disproportionately placed women in academic science on the frontlines of domestic and clinical care compared to men. As a result, women in science are publishing less and potentially acquiring less funding during COVID-19 than compared to before. This widens the pre-existing gap between men and women in prevailing, publication-based measures of productivity used to determine academic career progression. Early career women and those with intersectional identities associated with greater inequities, are facing unique challenges during this time. We argue that women will fall further behind unless academic reward systems adjust how and what they evaluate. We propose several strategies that academic institutions, funders, journals, and men in academic science can take.

Purposeful Evaluation of Scholarship in the Open Science Era

In most of the world’s countries, scholarship evaluation for tenure and promotion continues to rely on conventional criteria of publications in journals of high impact factor and achievements in securing research funds. Continuing to hire and promote scholars based on these criteria exposes universities to risk because students, directly and indirectly through government funds, are the main source of revenues for academic institutions. At the same time, talented young researchers increasingly look for professors renowned for excellence in mentoring doctoral students and early career researchers. Purposeful scholarship evaluation in the open science era needs to include all three areas of scholarly activity: research, teaching and mentoring, and service to society.

Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the financial costs paid by individual medical researchers from meeting the article processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals in 2019.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Scopus was used to generate two random samples of researchers, the first with a senior author article indexed in the 'Medicine' subject area (general researchers) and the second with an article published in the ten highest-impact factor general clinical medicine journals (high-impact researchers) in 2019. For each researcher, Scopus was used to identify all first and senior author original research or review articles published in 2019. Data were obtained from Scopus, institutional profiles, Journal Citation Reports, publisher databases, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and individual journal websites.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Median APCs paid by general and high-impact researchers for all first and senior author research and review articles published in 2019.

RESULTS

There were 241 general and 246 high-impact researchers identified as eligible for our study. In 2019, the general and high-impact researchers published a total of 914 (median 2, IQR 1-5) and 1471 (4, 2-8) first or senior author research or review articles, respectively. 42% (384/914) of the articles from the general researchers and 29% (428/1471) of the articles from the high-impact medical researchers were published in fully open access journals. The median total APCs paid by general researchers in 2019 was US$191 (US$0-US$2500) and the median total paid by high-impact researchers was US$2900 (US$0-US$5465); the maximum paid by a single researcher in total APCs was US$30115 and US$34676, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical researchers in 2019 were found to have paid between US$0 and US$34676 in total APCs. As journals with APCs become more common, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential cost to researchers, especially on individuals who may not have the funding or institutional resources to cover these costs.

Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in faculties of medicine: a cross-sectional study of the Canadian U15 universities

Background: The objective of this study was to determine the presence of a set of prespecified criteria used to assess scientists for promotion and tenure within faculties of medicine among the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities.

Methods: Each faculty guideline for assessing promotion and tenure was reviewed and the presence of five traditional (peer-reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact factor, grant funding, and national/international reputation) and seven nontraditional (citations, data sharing, publishing in open access mediums, accommodating leaves, alternative ways for sharing research, registering research, using reporting guidelines) criteria were collected by two reviewers.

Results: Among the U15 institutions, four of five traditional criteria (80.0%) were present in at least one promotion guideline, whereas only three of seven nontraditional incentives (42.9%) were present in any promotion guidelines. When assessing full professors, there were a median of three traditional criteria listed, versus one nontraditional criterion.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that faculties of medicine among the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities base assessments for promotion and tenure on traditional criteria. Some of these metrics may reinforce problematic practices in medical research. These faculties should consider incentivizing criteria that can enhance the quality of medical research.

The Rigor and Transparency Index Quality Metric for Assessing Biological and Medical Science Methods

The reproducibility crisis is a multifaceted problem involving ingrained practices within the scientific community. Fortunately, some causes are addressed by the author's adherence to rigor and reproducibility criteria, implemented via checklists at various journals. We developed an automated tool (SciScore) that evaluates research articles based on their adherence to key rigor criteria, including NIH criteria and RRIDs, at an unprecedented scale. We show that despite steady improvements, less than half of the scoring criteria, such as blinding or power analysis, are routinely addressed by authors; digging deeper, we examined the influence of specific checklists on average scores. The average score for a journal in a given year was named the Rigor and Transparency Index (RTI), a new journal quality metric. We compared the RTI with the Journal Impact Factor and found there was no correlation. The RTI can potentially serve as a proxy for methodological quality.

Dental Research Waste in Design, Analysis, and Reporting: A Scoping Review

Research waste is highly prevalent across biomedical investigations. We aimed to assess the evidence on the extent of research waste in dental research. We performed a scoping review of empirical evaluations of dental studies assessing the prevalence and impact of limitations in design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of research. PubMed was searched using specific terms to retrieve studies dealing with design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of studies in dentistry, with no year or language restrictions. Of the 1,807 publications identified from the search and from manual searches, 71 were included in this review. The topic and article selection was based on the expert opinion of the authors. The existing evidence suggests that, although there are improvements over time, substantial deficiencies in all areas (design, conduct, analysis, reporting) were prevalent in dental research publications. Waste in research is a multifaceted problem without a simple solution. However, an appreciation of optimal research design and execution is a prerequisite and should be underpinned by policies that include appropriate training in research methods and properly aligned incentives.