Identification and Ranking of Biomedical Informatics Researcher Citation Statistics through a Google Scholar Scraper

To overcome limitations of previously developed scientific productivity ranking services, we created the Biomedical Informatics Researchers ranking website (rank.informatics-review.com). The website is composed of four key components that work together to create the automatically updating ranking website: 1) list of biomedical informatics researchers, 2) Google Scholar scraper, 3) display page, and 4) updater. The interactive website has facilitated identification of leaders in each of the key citation statistics categories (i.e., number of citations, h-index, and i10-index), and it has allowed other groups, such as tenure and promotions committees, to more effectively and efficiently evaluate researchers and interpret the various citation statistics reported by candidates. Creation of the biomedical informatics researcher ranking website highlights the vast differences in scholarly productivity among members of the biomedical informatics research community. Future efforts are underway to add new functionality to the website and to expand the work to identify top papers in biomedical informatics.

Who Are the People in Your Neighborhood? Personas Populating Unregulated mHealth Research

A key feature of unregulated mHealth research is the diversity of participants in this space. Applying an approach drawn from user experience design, we describe a set of archetypal unregulated mHealth researcher "personas," which range from individuals who seek empowerment or have philanthropic objectives to those who are primarily motivated by financial gain or have misanthropic objectives. These descriptions are useful for evaluating policies applicable to mHealth to understand how they will impact various stakeholders.

Expert Perspectives on Oversight for Unregulated mHealth Research: Empirical Data and Commentary

In qualitative interviews with a diverse group of experts, the vast majority believed unregulated researchers should seek out independent oversight. Reasons included the need for objectivity, protecting app users from research risks, and consistency in standards for the ethical conduct of research. Concerns included burdening minimal risk research and limitations in current systems of oversight. Literature and analysis supports the use of IRBs even when not required by regulations, and the need for evidence-based improvements in IRB processes.

Mobile Research Applications and State Data Protection Statutes

This article focuses on state privacy, security, and data breach regulation of mobile-app mediated health research, concentrating in particular on research studies conducted or participated in by independent scientists, citizen scientists, and patient researchers. Prior scholarship addressing these issues tends to focus on the lack of application of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and other sources of federal regulation. One article, however, mentions state law as a possible source of privacy and security protections for individuals in the particular context of mobile app-mediated health research. This Article builds on this prior scholarship by: (1) assessing state data protection statutes that are potentially applicable to mobile app-mediated health researchers; and (2) suggesting statutory amendments that could better protect the privacy and security of mobile health research data. As discussed in more detail below, all fifty states and the District of Columbia have potentially applicable data breach notification statutes that require the notification of data subjects of certain informational breaches in certain contexts. In addition, more than two-thirds of jurisdictions have potentially applicable data security statutes and almost one-third of jurisdictions have potentially applicable data privacy statutes. Because all jurisdictions have data breach notification statutes, these statutes will be assessed first.

Unregulated Health Research Using Mobile Devices: Ethical Considerations and Policy Recommendations

Mobile devices with health apps, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, crowd-sourced information, and other data sources have enabled research by new classes of researchers. Independent researchers, citizen scientists, patient-directed researchers, self-experimenters, and others are not covered by federal research regulations because they are not recipients of federal financial assistance or conducting research in anticipation of a submission to the FDA for approval of a new drug or medical device. This article addresses the difficult policy challenge of promoting the welfare and interests of research participants, as well as the public, in the absence of regulatory requirements and without discouraging independent, innovative scientific inquiry. The article recommends a series of measures, including education, consultation, transparency, self-governance, and regulation to strike the appropriate balance.

Mobile Research Applications and State Research Laws

This article assesses the protections provided by state research laws for participants in mobile application (mobile app) mediated health research conducted by independent scientists, citizen scientists, and patient researchers. Prior scholarship in this area focuses on the lack of application of: (1) federal regulations governing research conducted or funded by one of sixteen signatory federal departments and agencies (the Common Rule); and (2) separate federal regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration applicable to research conducted in anticipation of a submission to the FDA for approval of a drug or medical device. This article builds on this prior scholarship by carefully examining state research laws and suggesting ways in which these laws could be improved to better protect participants of mobile appmediated research conducted by independent scientists, citizen scientists, and patient researchers.

Privacy and Security Issues with Mobile Health Research Applications

This article examines the privacy and security issues associated with mobile application-mediated health research, concentrating in particular on research conducted or participated in by independent scientists, citizen scientists, and patient researchers. Building on other articles in this issue that examine state research laws and state data protection laws as possible sources of privacy and security protections for mobile research participants, this article focuses on the lack of application of federal standards to mobile application-mediated health research. As discussed in more detail below, the voluminous and diverse data collected by some independent scientists who use mobile applications to conduct health research may be at risk for unregulated privacy and security breaches, leading to dignitary, psychological, and economic harms for which participants have few legally enforceable rights or remedies under current federal law. Federal lawmakers may wish to consider enacting new legislation that would require otherwise unregulated health data holders to implement reasonable data privacy, security, and breach notification measures.

Productivity of CNPq Researchers from Different Fields in Biomedical Sciences: The Need for Objective Bibliometric Parameters-A Report from Brazil

In Brazil, the CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) provides grants, funds and fellowships to productive scientists to support their investigations. They are ranked and categorized into four hierarchical levels ranging from PQ 1A (the highest) to PQ 1D (the lowest). Few studies, however, report and analyse scientific productivity in different sub-fields of Biomedical Sciences (BS), e.g., Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Biophysics and Physiology. In fact, systematic comparisons of productivity among the PQ 1 categories within the above sub-fields are lacking in the literature. Here, the scientific productivity of 323 investigators receiving PQ 1 fellowships (A to D levels) in these sub-fields of BS was investigated. The Scopus database was used to compile the total number of articles, citations, h-index values and authorship positions (first-, co- or last-listed author) in the most cited papers by researchers granted CNPq fellowships. We found that researchers from Pharmacology had the best performance for all of the parameters analysed, followed by those in Biochemistry. There was great variability in scientific productivity within the PQ 1A level in all of the sub-fields of BS, but not within the other levels (1B, 1C and 1D). Analysis of the most cited papers of PQ 1(A-D) researchers in Pharmacology revealed that the citations of researchers in the 1C and 1D levels were associated with publications with their senior supervisors, whereas those in the 1B level were less connected with their supervisors in comparison to those in 1A. Taken together, these findings suggest that the scientific performance of PQ 1A researchers in BS is not homogenous. In our opinion, parameters such as the most cited papers without the involvement of Ph.D. and/or post-doctoral supervisors should be used to make decisions regarding any given researcher's fellowship award level.

What is the actual prevalence of migraine?

OBJECTIVES

Population prevalence studies of migraine report prevalence rates of between 2.6 and 21.7%, with an average of ~12%. However, migraine prevalence among neurologists is reported to be significantly higher, between 27.6% and 48.6%. Increasing knowledge of the protean manifestations of migraine may explain this difference. Similarly, under-recognition of migraine in control groups may explain the lack of genetic and biomarker findings in this disorder. We therefore sought to determine the prevalence of migraine in an admixed group of individuals with varied knowledge of migraine symptomatology.

METHODS

Attendees at the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists Annual Scientific Meeting (ANZAN ASM) 2017 were surveyed anonymously. Those surveyed included three groups: neurologists, neurology trainees, and others including nonclinical researchers, members of lay organizations, and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry.

RESULTS

In total, 313 of 606 attendees responded (51.7%). 65.9% of neurologist, 57.4% of trainee, and 52.5% of others respondents had a personal history of migraine, with the difference between neurologists and others being statistically significant (p = .03). Migraine in migraineurs and nonmigraine headache in nonmigraineurs were nearly all self-diagnosed. Among neurologist migraineurs, 51.2% experienced migraine with aura and 43% migraine without aura.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine prevalence is significantly higher in neurologists compared to non-neurologists and at least 2-3 times higher than reported in population prevalence studies. This may be due to significant under-recognition of migraine in non-neurologists. This under-recognition of migraine may significantly influence the search for genetic predictors and biomarkers of migraine.

Working Definitions of the Roles and an Organizational Structure in Health Professions Education Scholarship: Initiating an International Conversation

PROBLEM

Health professions education scholarship (HPES) is an important and growing field of inquiry. Problematically, consistent use of terminology regarding the individual roles and organizational structures that are active in this field are lacking. This inconsistency impedes the transferability of current and future findings related to the roles and organizational structures of HPES.

APPROACH

Based on data collected during interviews with HPES leaders in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the Netherlands, the authors constructed working definitions for some of the professional roles and an organizational structure that support HPES. All authors reviewed the definitions to ensure relevance across multiple countries.

OUTCOMES

The authors define and offer illustrative examples of three professional roles in HPES (clinician educator, HPES research scientist, and HPES administrative leader) and an organizational structure that can support HPES participation (HPES unit). These working definitions are foundational and not all-encompassing and, thus, are offered as stimulus for international dialogue and understanding.

NEXT STEPS

With these working definitions, scholars and administrative leaders can examine HPES roles and organizational structures across and between national contexts to decide how lessons learned in other contexts can be applied to their local contexts. Although rigorously constructed, these definitions need to be vetted by the international HPES community. The authors argue that these definitions are sufficiently transferable to support such scholarly investigation and debate.

After the doctorate: a qualitative study investigating nursing research career development in Jordan

There is a dearth of research exploring the development of postdoctoral nursing research careers in non-Western contexts. This paper reports on a qualitative study of Jordanian graduates of UK PhD programs. Interviews were held with 16 graduates who worked in the nursing faculty of seven different universities in Jordan. Participants reported that their doctoral degree had equipped them with confidence and enthusiasm for developing a research career. Mentorship, leadership, and peer support were identified as essential to supporting ongoing research activity. Access to these sources of support was variable and participants also described a range of institutional and organizational structures that directly or indirectly discouraged them from developing research productivity. This research suggests that support for postdoctoral novice researchers is an important area for further attention - for Jordanian universities, for UK PhD supervisors (and their associated academic departments), and for the wider nursing community.

A survey on the professional staff of medical education research units in China

BACKGROUND

Professional staff engaged in medical education research was important for enhancing the quality of medical education.

AIM

To look at the current condition of professional staff in medical education research units in China.

METHODS

A total of 46 related-to-insiders in 46 medical schools completed a questionnaire including the affiliation and mission and activities of the units, and the number and characteristics of the professional staff.

RESULTS

Of the 46 schools, 24 (52.2%) had independent medical education research units. Of the 170 staff in the 24 units (mean = 7.1), 43.5% achieved Bachelor's degree or less and 61.8% had senior-level title, 27.6% middle-level title, and 10.6% junior-level title. Of the 24 units, 4.2% did not have any full-time professional staff, 16.7% had 1-2 full-time professional staff, 4.1% did not have any professional staff achieved Master's degree and above, and 87.5% cited educational research, 70.8% program evaluation, 58.3% sponsoring journals 54.2% teaching, 45.8% teacher evaluation, 41.7% faculty development, and 33.3% student evaluation in their mission and activities statements.

CONCLUSION

The professional staff in medical education research units were insufficient in China. The composition of their education and professional title should be improved. The mission of the units was too narrow.

Are investigators aware of environmental noise in animal facilities and that this noise may affect experimental data?

Control of environmental factors, such as noise, in animal facilities is important to ensure that research animals respond consistently to experimental procedures and that experimental results are not confounded by outside influences. A survey of personnel involved with animal facilities (173 respondents) showed that almost all agreed with this statement. However, 48% thought that one or more environmental factors in their facilities could be stressing the animals, and a majority of respondents reported generation of audible noise from people (72% of respondents), fans (61%), and squeaky carts (56%). The presence of these noises was correlated with the perception of noise as a problem because of its psychologic and physiologic effects on the animals. The amount of time respondents spent in the facilities was strongly correlated with their perception of noise as a problem, with veterinarians spending the most time and perceiving the most problems, and professors and assistant/ associate professors spending the least and perceiving the fewest. Therefore, they may lack key knowledge that can affect their research goals. In addition, because faculty are the least aware of noise as a potential problem but are primarily responsible for designing experiments, research involving animals may be confounded by noise as an unknown variable. This effect may lead to unnecessary numbers of animals being required to achieve statistical significance and possibly to erroneous interpretation of results. On the basis of the findings of this survey, we present recommendations for improving the environment, particularly for decreasing the noise level, in animal facilities.

What do you do for a living? Toward a more succinct definition of health services research

This commentary discusses the need for, and the advantages of, a more concise, revised definition of the field of health services research. It argues for a definition that includes not only the topics on which health services research focuses but also the goals of health services research. A number of condensed definitions are provided for consideration.

Who's who in biotech

Nature Biotechnology's readers select some of biotech's most remarkable and influential personalities from the past 10 years.

Setting directions for capacity building in primary health care: a survey of a research network

Background

The South Australian Research Network 'SARNet' aims to build research capacity in primary health care, as part of a national government-funded strategy to integrate research into clinical practice. Internationally, research networks have been a fundamental part of research culture change, and a variety of network models exist. The 'SARNet' model uses a whole system, multidisciplinary approach to capacity building and supports individuals and groups. We undertook a descriptive baseline survey in order to understand the background and needs of SARNet members and to tailor network activities towards those needs.

Methods

A questionnaire survey, assessing members' professional background, research experience, and interest in research development and training, was sent to all members who joined the network in its first year. The visual 'research spider' tool was used to ascertain members' experience in ten core research skills, as well as their interest in developing these skills. Individuals were asked to classify themselves into one of four categories of researchers, based on previous research experience. These self-assessment categories ranged from non-participant to academic.

Results

Network membership was diverse. Of the 89 survey participants, 55% were general practitioners or allied health professionals. Overall, most survey respondents indicated little to moderate experience in 7 out of the 10 skills depicted in the 'research spider'. In comparison, respondents were generally highly interested in developing their research skills in all areas. Respondents' research skills correlated significantly with their self-assessed category of research participation (Spearman rank correlation, r = 0.82, p < 0.0005). Correlations between research category and publication record (Gamma association, γ = 0.53, p < 0.0005) or funding record (Gamma association, γ = 0.62, p < 0.0005) supported the internal validity of the survey instrument.

Conclusion

Literature describing evaluation of the impact of networks is scarce. Our survey questionnaire could provide a useful instrument for evaluation of both networks and capacity building initiatives. The survey including the 'research spider' tool provided valuable information about members' needs and interest in strategies to develop their research skills. Initial needs analyses as well as on-going evaluation of network activities are important to include into the business plans of research networks, in order to ensure the network's effectiveness and support of its membership.

Essential Science Indicators

The Essential Science Indicators (ESI) database, published by Thomson Scientific/ISI, presents an array of data that ranks scientists/health professionals, their individual papers, and the journals in which they are published, as well as countries and institutions that perform scientific research. By using this resource, it is possible to prepare ranked statistical lists. The resource covers 6,000 journals published in both the United States and from international publishers. Users should note that ESI covers scientific information in the broadest possible scope, so this is not just limited to biomedical topics and resources.

Analysis of Mutual Information Content for EEG Responses to Odor Stimulation for Subjects Classified by Occupation

To investigate the changes of cortico-cortical connectivity during odor stimulation of subjects classified by occupation, the mutual information content of EEGs was examined for general workers, perfume salespersons and professional perfume researchers. Analysis of the averaged-cross mutual information content (A-CMI) from the EEGs revealed that among the professional perfume researchers changes in the A-CMI values during odor stimulation were more apparent in the frontal region of the brain, while for the general workers and perfume salespersons such changes were more conspicuous in the overall posterior temporal, parietal and frontal regions. These results indicate that the brains of professional perfume researchers respond to odors mainly in the frontal region, reflecting the function of the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) due to the occupational requirement of these subjects to discriminate or identify odors. During odor stimulation, the perfume salespersons, although relatively more exposed to odors than the general workers, showed similar changes to the general workers. The A-CMI value is in inverse proportion to psychological preferences of the professional perfume researchers and perfume salespersons, though this is not the case with the general workers. This result suggests that functional coupling for people who are occupationally exposed to odors may be related to psychological preference.

At what price? The current state of subject payment in adolescent research

PURPOSE

To examine how subject payment was associated with study features, such as investigator characteristics and project specifics, among randomly selected studies using adolescent subjects.

METHODS

Using Psychinfo we gathered a list of original research studies published in 1999 that used adolescent subjects. We randomly selected corresponding authors and mailed confidential questionnaires on subject payment. We gathered complete data from 127 authors of adolescent research. While our main outcome was subject payment, we also examined the monetary value and form of the payment. Predictor variables included the principal investigator's demographics and professional information and the project's design and sample. Data were analyzed using Student's t-tests, Pearson correlations, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the studies using adolescent subjects, 55% (n=61) involved payment. Total payment varied (range $1 to $600, mean=$82.35) and the mean value per session was $26.61. Investigator characteristics associated with payment were a principal investigator's current discipline area and the decade, level and area of highest educational degree obtained. Funding and protocol complexity were related to payment, as was the sample's size, gender composition, ethnic makeup, SES distribution, and at-risk status. Logistic regression analyses found that researchers using payment were 7.2 times more likely to have funding, 2.8 times more likely to work with at-risk youth, and for every unit increase in positive attitude toward compensation, there was a 1.1-fold increase in the likelihood of using payment.

CONCLUSIONS

Of those who responded to our questionnaire, slightly more than one-half the 1999 published studies done with adolescents used payment; however, the amount paid varied tremendously.

Unethical author attribution

I am an M.D/Ph.D. student and work as a research assistant for the director of a division of the school of medicine who is an M.D. He assigned me to research a certain topic and gave me no guidelines or guidance as to how to do it. Nevertheless, I did the research and wrote it up. My supervisor liked the report and said that he thought it was so good that “I would like to offer you the opportunity to publish it and list you as the primary author.” Some bells went off when he so grandly offered to let me author the report for which I had done 100% of research and writing. I consulted some other people in the field and they said that, as long as I was the primary author, it was legitimate for him to list himself as secondary author if he did some editing later. After editing the abstract only, he e-mailed his revisions to me and in a note at the bottom he asked me what I thought of his revised author order. His name was first, mine second, and the name of his girlfriend (who had no part in this research or its revision) was third. I was shocked by what seemed to be a case of unethical author attribution and confronted him asking why he changed the order when we had agreed that I was primary author. He said that he had put in several hours of work.