Research and open access from low- and middle-income countries

Workforce Challenges for the Neurosurgical Care of Brain Tumors in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

Limited neurosurgical workforces remain one of the critical problems experienced in low resource settings. Therefore, our study aims to explore and summarize the key challenges to neurosurgical care of brain tumors in terms of workforce in LMICs. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar from inception to October 20, 2022. All extracted data were screened independently by 2 reviewers and thematically analyzed. We found and screened 3764 articles, of which 33 studies were included in our final analysis as per our inclusion criteria. Among the studies included, 33% highlighted the limited number of neurosurgeons, 39% emphasized the absence of specialized surgical teams, 7% pointed out a shortage of nursing staff, and 4% noted suboptimal anesthesia teams. The study uncovered the need for improved training programs in neuro-oncology (32%) and neuro-anesthesia (3%), as well as improved collaboration (32%), and multidisciplinary team structures (15%), are essential for tackling these workforce challenges and improving patient outcomes. It is crucial to implement targeted interventions and policy changes to address the barriers to the workforce in providing effective neurosurgical care to patients with brain tumors in developing countries. This might entail capacity building and training programs for healthcare professionals. Policymakers should consider allocating resources and funding for workforce development and making neurosurgical care a priority in healthcare plans.

Global Landscape of the Attack of Predatory Journals in Oncology

PURPOSE

Open-access publishing expanded opportunities to give visibility to research results but was accompanied by the proliferation of predatory journals (PJos) that offer expedited publishing but potentially compromise the integrity of research and peer review. To our knowledge, to date, there is no comprehensive global study on the impact of PJos in the field of oncology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 29 question-based cross-sectional survey was developed to explore knowledge and practices of predatory publishing and analyzed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

Four hundred and twenty-six complete responses to the survey were reported. Almost half of the responders reported feeling pressure to publish from supervisors, institutions, and funding and regulatory agencies. The majority of authors were contacted by PJos through email solicitations (67.8%), with fewer using social networks (31%). In total, 13.4% of the responders confirmed past publications on PJo, convinced by fast editorial decision time, low article-processing charges, limited peer review, and for the promise of academic boost in short time. Over half of the participants were not aware of PJo detection tools. We developed a multivariable model to understand the determinants to publish in PJos, showing a significant correlation of practicing oncology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and predatory publishing (odds ratio [OR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 4.03]; P = .04). Having previous experience in academic publishing was not protective (OR, 3.81 [95% CI, 1.06 to 13.62]; P = .03). Suggestions for interventions included educational workshops, increasing awareness through social networks, enhanced research funding in LMICs, surveillance by supervisors, and implementation of institutional actions against responsible parties.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of predatory publishing poses an alarming problem in the field of oncology, globally. Our survey identified actionable risk factors that may contribute to vulnerability to PJos and inform guidance to enhance research capacity broadly.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VIII: Barriers to research in oral medicine: results from a global survey

OBJECTIVES

To explore factors influencing research interest and productivity and perceived barriers to conducting research in Oral Medicine (OM).

METHODS

Invitations to participate in an online survey were e-mailed to a network of international OM practitioners and related professional organizations. Questions captured respondents' demographic/professional variables and gauged research interest, productivity, and perceived barriers to conducting research specifically in OM. Statistical analysis was conducted via descriptive, logistic regression, and multivariate modeling.

RESULTS

Five hundred and ninety-three OM practitioners from 55 countries completed the survey, with 54%, 25%, and 21% practicing in high, upper-middle, and lower-middle-income countries, respectively. Eighty-six percent of respondents were interested in conducting research. Age (less interest with an increase in age), working in academia, and practicing in a lower-middle vs high-income country were significant predictors of research interest. Self-reported research productivity was significantly greater among males, those working in academia, and those who graduated from programs that mandated research presentation/publication. Obtaining research funding was a significant barrier among respondents from lower and upper-middle-income countries, whereas finding time for research was a reported barrier by respondents from high-income countries.

CONCLUSION

The results of this survey identified perceived barriers to conducting research in OM and highlighted solutions to address such barriers.

h-Index, Journal Citation Indicator, and Other Impact Factors in Neurosurgical Publications: Is There a Cost Factor That Determines the Quality?

OBJECTIVE

There has been an increase in number of Neurosurgical publications, including open access (OA), in recent years. We aimed to compare journals' performance and the relationship to submission fees incurred in publication.

METHODS

We identified 53 journals issuing neurosurgery-related work. Quantitative analysis from various search engines involved obtaining h-index, Journal Citation Indicator (JCI), and other metrics such as Immediacy Index and 5-year impact factor utilising Journal Citation Reports. OA fees and individual subscription fees were collected. Correlations were produced using Spearman rho (ρ) (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Median h-index for 53 journals was 54 (range: 0-292), with JCI median reported as 0.785 (range: 0-2.45). Median Immediacy Index was 0.797 (range: 0-4.076), and median for 5-year impact factor was 2.76 (range: 0-12.704). There was a very strong positive correlation between JCI and Immediacy Index, JCI and 5-year impact factor, and 5-year impact factor and Immediacy Index (ρ > 0.7, P < 0.05). It is unclear whether there was any correlation between the indices and the OA costs and subscription costs for personal usage (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Larger costs incurred for OA fees and subscription costs for personal use do not clearly reflect on the journals' performance, as quantified by using various indices. There appears to be a strong association with performance across the journals' metrics. It would be beneficial to include learning about bibliometric indices' impact for research publications in medical education training to maximize the quality of the scientific work produced and increase the visibility of the information produced. The potential full movement to exclusively OA journals would create a significant barrier for junior researchers, small institutions, and full time-trainee physicians with limited funding available. This study suggests the need for a robust measurement of journals' output and the quality of the work produced.

Open access and its potential impact on public health - A South African perspective

Traditionally, access to research information has been restricted through journal subscriptions. This means that research entities and individuals who were unable to afford subscription costs did not have access to journal articles. There has however been a progressive shift toward electronic access to journal publications and subsequently growth in the number of journals available globally. In the context of electronic journals, both open access and restricted access options exist. While the latter option is comparable to traditional, subscription-based paper journals, open access journal publications follow an "open science" publishing model allowing scholarly communications and outputs to be publicly available online at no cost to the reader. However, for readers to enjoy open access, publication costs are shifted elsewhere, typically onto academic institutions and authors. SARS-CoV-2, and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the benefits of open science through accelerated research and unprecedented levels of collaboration and data sharing. South Africa is one of the leading open access countries on the African continent. This paper focuses on open access in the South African higher education research context with an emphasis on our Institution and our own experiences. It also addresses the financial implications of open access and provides possible solutions for reducing the cost of publication for researchers and their institutions. Privacy in open access and the role of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) in medical research and secondary use of data in South Africa will also be discussed.

Global Oncology Authorship and Readership Patterns

PURPOSE

Global Oncology is the movement to improve equitable access to cancer control and care, recognizing challenges because of economic and social factors between high-, middle-, and low-income countries (HIC, MIC, and LIC, respectively). The JCO Global Oncology (JCO GO) is a major platform dedicated to publishing peer-reviewed research relevant to populations with limited resources. To assess the success of its goals of encouraging global interaction and increasing MIC and LIC engagement, we analyzed authorship and readership patterns.

METHODS

Metadata of logged views between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, of articles published in 2018 by JCO GO were identified using Google Analytics. The country of origin of each author and those who accessed the journal were categorized according to the 2019 income group World Bank Classification (WBC).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two articles were published in JCO GO in 2018. Corresponding authors came from 34 nations: 35% HIC, 47% MIC, and 18% LIC. The top publishing countries were the United States, India, Brazil, Mexico, and Nigeria. Article authors were solely from within one WBC group in 41% (23% HIC, 16% MIC, and 2% LIC). In those with mixed-WBC authorship origins, collaborations were 42% HIC + MIC, 11% HIC + LIC, and 6% HIC + MIC + LIC, but none with MIC + LIC. Regarding viewing, 87,860 views originated from 180 countries (82% of the WBC list): 35% HIC, 51% MIC, and 14% LIC. The most common accessing nations were the United States, India, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Ethiopia.

CONCLUSION

More than half of JCO GO's authorship comes from mixed WBC groups, with viewership extending to most of the world's nations. Areas to address are low level of LIC corresponding authors, few papers from authors across all WBC groups, no publications from MIC + LIC collaborations, and a low percentage of readership by LIC. These data provide focus to target interventions aimed at reducing the academic segregation of LIC and improving interactions across all WBC countries.

Strengthening research capacity: a systematic review of manuscript writing and publishing interventions for researchers in low-income and middle-income countries

INTRODUCTION

Health researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in the academic literature. Scientific writing and publishing interventions may help researchers publish their findings; however, we lack evidence about the prevalence and effectiveness of such interventions. This review describes interventions for researchers in LMICs aimed at strengthening capacity for writing and publishing academic journal articles.

METHODS

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to report literature searches in PubMed, Embase, Global Health, Scopus and ERIC. Our keywords included LMICs, low-income and middle-income countries, health research and writing/publication support interventions, with no restrictions on publication date. Our screening process consisted of title screening, abstract review and full-text review. We collected information about the content, implementation and evaluation of each intervention, if included.

RESULTS

We identified 20 interventions designed to strengthen capacity for scientific writing and publishing. We summarised information from the 14 interventions that reported submitted or published papers as outcomes separately, reasoning that because they provide quantifiable metrics of success, they may offer particular insights into intervention components leading to publication. The writing and publishing components in this 'Publications Reported' group were an average length of 5.4 days compared with 2.5 days in the other group we refer to as 'Other Interventions.' Whereas all 14 Publications Reported interventions incorporated mentors, only two of five in the Other Interventions group incorporated mentors. Across interventions, leaders expressed the importance of a high ratio of mentors to participants, the need to accommodate time demands of busy researchers, and the necessity of a budget for open access fees and high-quality internet connectivity.

CONCLUSION

Writing and publishing interventions in LMICs are an underutilised opportunity for capacity strengthening. To facilitate the implementation of high-quality interventions, future writing and publishing interventions should share their experiences by publishing detailed information about the approach and effectiveness of the interventions.

Diversity in high-impact psychiatric publishing: gender parity within reach?

Gender parity and authorship diversity are declared goals in the publishing world. This study assessed the progress of authorship gender distribution over a quarter of a century and geographic diversity over the last 15 years in high-impact psychiatric journals. All articles published in 2019 in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the British Journal of Psychiatry, and JAMA Psychiatry were included and compared with data from three points in time starting in 1994. Descriptive statistics were gathered, and chi-square tests were performed. All tests were conducted as two-tailed, and p-values < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Inter-rater reliability was calculated via Cohen's kappa. In 2019 a total of 473 articles were published. Forty percent of all authors, 42.3% of first authors, and 29.4% of senior authors were female. Counting original research articles only, female first authorship reached 50.4%. In the 25-year period between 1994 and 2019, female first (p < .001), female senior (p < .001), and female overall (p < .001) authorship has increased. In the specific period between 2014 and 2019, overall female senior authorship in all articles (p = .940) as well as first (p = .101) and senior (p = .157) in original research plateaued. In non-original research articles, female first authorship was higher in 2019 compared to 2014 (p = .014), whilst female senior authorship plateaued (p = .154). Geographic diversity was low and did not change over time. Gender parity in the subcategory original research articles was reached for the first time in 2019. Senior female authorship and geographic diversity remain areas of concern that need further investigation and specific interventions.

Barriers to Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Care in Ukraine

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing in many low- to middle-income countries, including Ukraine. Ukraine reports high mortality rates in CRC patients. To identify potential areas for targeted interventions to improve CRC care in Ukraine, we investigated Ukrainian clinician perspectives on evidence-based CRC treatment guidelines.

METHODS

An explanatory sequential mixed-methods study design was used. A survey was administered to attendees of a regional surgical conference. Semi-structured interviews were subsequently performed with practicing clinicians in Ukraine. Interviews were coded to identify prominent themes.

RESULTS

Quantitative: 105 clinicians completed the survey. 76% of respondents reported using guidelines in daily practice. Lack of English proficiency was cited by 28.6% of respondents as a barrier to guideline use. Improved knowledge and additional financial resources were reported as factors that would be helpful in providing evidence-based care.

QUANTITATIVE

15 clinicians were interviewed. Two major themes were identified: limitations in access to the medical literature resources (language barriers and financial barriers), and sense of clinician initiative and willingness to learn despite hardships.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians in Ukraine have positive perspectives on utilization of evidence-based CRC treatment guidelines. However, they face major barriers in accessing resources needed to keep up-to-date on the current literature. Fortunately, there exists both willingness and initiative on the clinician level to pursue continuing education. Efforts should be made on the international society level to improve open-access and foreign language translation availability to support physicians in Ukraine and other low- to middle-income countries.

Publication Trends of Nonobstetric Brachial Plexus Injury Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate publication trends in nonobstetric brachial plexus injury research.

METHODS

In September 2020, Scopus was searched for articles on nonobstretric brachial plexus injury. Citation count, year of publication, country of corresponding author and its income category, destiny journal and its 5-year impact factor (IF), and research type were retrieved.

RESULTS

The analysis comprised 1245 articles. Mean number of citations per article was 18.01 (95% confidence interval 16.46-19.55). Mean IF was 3.60 (95% confidence interval 3.25-3.95). The 5 most prolific journals had an IF <5. The journal with the highest number of articles was the Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume) (n = 70, 5.6%). The most prolific country was the United States (n = 313, 25.1%). There were 913 articles (73.3%) from high-income countries, 246 (19.8%) from upper middle-income countries, and 68 (5.5%) from lower middle-income countries. No articles were from low-income countries. The representation of middle-income countries increased from 2.1% of published articles in 1980-1989 to 40.0% in 2010-2019. Primary research represented 64.0% (n = 797) of articles, while secondary research and case reports represented 13.0% (n = 162) and 23.0% (n = 286) of articles, respectively. Narrative reviews (n = 142, 11.4%;) and systematic reviews (n = 20, 1.6%) comprised articles from the secondary research group.

CONCLUSIONS

While high-income countries still represent the majority of publications, the contribution of researchers from middle-income countries is increasing. The most common destiny journals are field specific, with a relatively low IF. Although most articles are primary research, a representative portion have a shallow level of evidence (case reports and narrative reviews).

Research Equity in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery

Equitable research collaborations benefit the quality and relevance of global otolaryngology-head and neck surgery research. However, analyses of existing global health literature have shown disproportionate representation by foreign authors. To avert this inequity and improve global otolaryngology-head and neck surgery research, we propose a framework that emphasizes local representation and capacity building in research.