Do the Criteria of Our Best-Paper Awards Need Revision?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ameen S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8295584 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Do the Criteria of Our Best-Paper Awards Need Revision?
Ameen Shahul S Menon Vikas V Praharaj Samir Kumar SK
Indian journal of psychological medicine 20201227 1
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9579600 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Molecules has started to institute a "Best Paper" award to recognize the most outstanding papers in the area of natural products, medicinal chemistry and molecular diversity published in Molecules. We are pleased to announce the second "Molecules Best Paper Award" for 2013.
| S-EPMC6269774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Materials is instituting an annual award to recognize the outstanding papers in the area of materials science and engineering published in Materials. We are pleased to announce the first "Materials Best Paper Award" for 2013. Nominations were selected by the Section Editor-in-Chiefs and Editorial Board members of Materials from all papers published in 2009. [...].
| S-EPMC5452086 | biostudies-other
Project description:Materials has established an annual award for the best article and for the best review published in Materials in order to acknowledge the outstanding contributions of our authors in the area of materials science and engineering.[...].
| S-EPMC5455272 | biostudies-other
Project description:Materials instituted an annual award in order to acknowledge outstanding papers in the area of materials science and engineering published in Materials. [...].
| S-EPMC5453069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Admission criteria and standardized management strategies for bronchiolitis are addressed in several guidelines and have shown to be beneficial; however, guidance regarding discharge criteria is limited and widely variable. We assessed the impact on clinical outcomes of a discharge protocol for children <2 years of age hospitalized with bronchiolitis in a tertiary care pediatric hospital. METHODS:In October 2013, a protocol to standardize the discharge of children with bronchiolitis was implemented in the infectious diseases (ID) ward but not in other pediatric units caring for these children (non-ID). The protocol included objective clinical criteria and a standardized oxygen weaning pathway. Patients were identified via International Classification of Diseases-9 codes and data manually reviewed. We compared length of stay (LOS) and readmission rates within 2 weeks of discharge according to protocol implementation (ID versus non-ID), adjusted for demographic factors, comorbidities, viral etiology and stratified by pediatric intensive care unit admission. RESULTS:From October 2013 to May 2015, 1118 children were hospitalized in ID and 695 in non-ID units. Median age was 4.5 months, 55% were males and 28% had comorbidities. LOS was 36% longer in non-ID units (risk ratio: 1.36 [1.27-1.45]; P < 0.001) adjusted for age, gender, comorbidities and viral etiology. Difference in LOS remained significant after excluding children with comorbidities and stratifying by pediatric intensive care unit admission. Readmission rates were comparable between units (ID, 2.9% versus non-ID, 2.6%). CONCLUSIONS:A standardized discharge protocol for bronchiolitis reduced LOS without increasing readmission rates. Unifying bronchiolitis discharge criteria and oxygen weaning pathways could positively impact hospital-based patient care for this condition.
| S-EPMC5953775 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In Response to: Helm CE, Blackwood RA. Pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS): Experience at a tertiary referral center. Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov. 2015; 5. doi: 10.7916/D8348JCX.
| S-EPMC4502346 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11567807 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Authorship of peer-reviewed journal articles and abstracts has become the primary currency and reward unit in academia. Such a reward is crucial for students and postdocs who are often under-compensated and thus highly value authorship as an incentive. While numerous scientific and publishing organizations have written guidelines for determining author qualifications and author order, there remains much ambiguity when it comes to how these criteria are weighed by research faculty. Here, we sought to provide some initial insight on how faculty view the relative importance of 11 criteria for scientific authorship. We distributed an online survey to 564 biomedical engineering, biology, and bioengineering faculty members at 10 research institutions across the United States. The response rate was approximately 18%, resulting in a final sample of 102 respondents. Results revealed an agreement on some criteria, such as time spent conducting experiments, but there was a lack of agreement regarding the role of funding procurement. This study provides quantitative assessments of how faculty members in the biosciences evaluate authorship criteria. We discuss the implications of these findings for researchers, especially new graduate students, to help navigate the discrepancy between official policies for authorship and the contributions that faculty truly value.
| S-EPMC5567537 | biostudies-literature