Early Career Advisory Board: Q&A on career and publishing.
ABSTRACT: We interviewed our Early Career Advisory Board to learn about their experiences finding their academic position and managing a new laboratory, and their views on peer review and scientific publishing. An excerpted version is presented here and all other responses are found in the supplemental material.
Project description:In recognition of Open Access week (21st-27th October 2013), we asked some BMC Medicine Editorial Board Members to share their views and experiences on open access publishing. In this short video, they highlight the benefits of visibility and dissemination of their research, and discuss the future directions for this model of publishing.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To investigate the scope of academic spam emails (ASEs) among career development grant awardees and the factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing them. DESIGN:A cross-sectional survey of career development grant investigators via an anonymous online survey was conducted. In addition to demographic and professional information, we asked investigators to report the number of ASEs received each day, how they determined whether these emails were spam and time they spent per day addressing them. We used bivariate analysis to assess factors associated with the amount of time spent on ASEs. SETTING:An online survey sent via email on three separate occasions between November and December 2016. PARTICIPANTS:All National Institutes of Health career development awardees funded in the 2015 fiscal year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing ASEs. RESULTS:A total of 3492 surveys were emailed, of which 206 (5.9%) were returned as undeliverable and 96 (2.7%) reported an out-of-office message; our overall response rate was 22.3% (n=733). All respondents reported receiving ASEs, with the majority (54.4%) receiving between 1 and 10 per day and spending between 1 and 10 min each day evaluating them. The amount of time respondents reported spending on ASEs was associated with the number of peer-reviewed journal articles authored (p<0.001), a history of publishing in open access format (p<0.01), the total number of ASEs received (p<0.001) and a feeling of having missed opportunities due to ignoring these emails (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS:ASEs are a common distraction for career development grantees that may impact faculty productivity. There is an urgent need to mitigate this growing problem.
Project description:Transplantation medicine is a rapidly evolving field. Keeping afloat of the published literature to offer the best clinical care to our patients is a daunting task. As part of its educational mission, the Descartes advisory board identified seven topics in kidney transplantation where there has been substantial progresses over the last years: kidney allocation within Eurotransplant; kidney exchange strategies; kidney machine perfusion strategies; the changing landscape of anti-human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies; the new immunosuppressive drugs in the pipeline; strategies for immunosuppression minimization; and the continuous enigma of focal segmental glomerular sclerosis recurrence after transplantation. Here, we have summarized the main knowledge and the main challenges of these seven topics with the aim to provide transplant professionals at large with key bullet points to successfully understand these new concepts.
Project description:The risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF) and the risk of stroke both increase with advancing age. As such, many individuals have, or will develop, an indication for oral anticoagulation to reduce the risk of stroke. Currently, a large number of anticoagulants are available, including vitamin K antagonists, direct thrombin or factor Xa inhibitors (the last two also referred to as direct oral anticoagulants or DOACs), and different dosages are available. Of the DOACs, rivaroxaban can be obtained in the most different doses: 2.5?mg, 5?mg, 15?mg and 20?mg. Many patients develop co-morbidities and/or undergo procedures that may require the temporary combination of anticoagulation with antiplatelet therapy. In daily practice, clinicians encounter complex scenarios that are not always described in the treatment guidelines, and clear recommendations are lacking. Here, we report the outcomes of a multidisciplinary advisory board meeting, held in Utrecht (The Netherlands) on 3 June 2019, on decision making in complex clinical situations regarding the use of DOACs. The advisory board consisted of Dutch cardiovascular specialists: (interventional) cardiologist, internist, neurologist, vascular surgeon and general practitioners invited according to personal title and specific field of expertise.
Project description:<h4>Objective</h4>To study relationships between clinical skill measures assessed at the beginning of general internists' careers and their career outcomes and practice characteristics.<h4>Data sources</h4>General Internist Community Tracking Study Physician Survey respondents (2000-2001, 2004-2005) linked with residency program evaluations and American Board of Internal Medicine board certification examination score records; n = 2,331.<h4>Study design</h4>Cross-sectional regressions of career outcome and practice characteristic measures on board examination scores/success, residency evaluations interacted with residency type, and potential confounding variables.<h4>Principal findings</h4>Failure to achieve board certification was associated with $27,206 (18 percent, p < .05) less income and 14.9 percent more minority patients relative to physicians scoring in the bottom quartile on their initial examination who eventually became certified (p < .01). Other skill measures were not associated with income. Scoring in the top rather than bottom quartile on the board certification examination was associated with 9 percent increased likelihood of reporting high career satisfaction (p < .05). Among physicians trained in community hospital residency programs, lower evaluations were associated with 14.5 percent higher share of minority patients (p < .05). Both skill measures were associated with practice type.<h4>Conclusions</h4>There are associations between early career skill measures and career outcomes. In addition, minority patients are more likely to be treated by physicians with lower early career clinical skills measures than nonminority patients.
Project description:Introduction:Open access (OA) publishing rates have risen dramatically in the biomedical sciences in the past decade. However, few studies have focused on the publishing activities and attitudes of early career researchers. The aim of this study was to examine current publishing activities of clinical and research fellows and their perceptions of OA publishing and public access. Methods:This study employed a mixed methods approach. Data on publications authored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center fellows between 2013 and 2018 were collected via an in-house author profile system and citation indexes. Journals were categorized according to SHERPA/RoMEO classifications. In-person and telephone interviews were conducted with fifteen fellows to discern their perceptions of OA publishing. Results:The total percentage of fellows' publications that were freely available OA was 28.6%, with a relatively flat rate between 2013 and 2018. Publications with fellows as first authors were significantly more likely to be OA. Fellows cited high article processing charges (APCs) and perceived lack of journal quality or prestige as barriers to OA publishing. Fellows generally expressed support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy. Conclusions:While the fellows in this study acknowledged the potential of OA to aid in research dissemination, they also expressed hesitation to publish OA related to confusion surrounding legitimate OA and predatory publications and frustration with APCs. Fellows supported the NIH public access policy and accepted it as part of their research process. Health sciences information professionals could potentially leverage this acceptance of public access to advocate for OA publishing.
Project description:Policy Points Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee recommendations and the agency's final actions exhibit high rates of agreement, with cases of disagreement tending to reflect the proposed action type and degree of advisory committee consensus. In the case of disagreements, the FDA tended to be less likely than its advisory committees to approve new products, approve new supplemental indications, or enact new safety changes. These findings raise important issues regarding the factors that differentially shape decision making by advisory committees and the FDA as an agency, including institutional or reputational concerns. CONTEXT:The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convenes advisory committees to provide external scientific counsel on potential agency actions and to inform regulatory decision making. The degree to which advisory committees and their respective agency divisions disagree on recommendations has not been well characterized across product and action types. METHODS:We examined public documents from FDA advisory committee meetings and medical product databases for all FDA advisory committee meetings from 2008 through 2015. We classified the 376 voting meetings in that period by medical product, regulatory, and advisory committee meeting characteristics. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the associations between these characteristics and discordance between the advisory committee's recommendations and the FDA's final actions. FINDINGS:Twenty-two percent of the FDA's final actions were discordant with the advisory committee's recommendations. Of these, 75% resulted in the FDA making more restrictive decisions after favorable committee recommendations, and 25% resulted in the agency making less restrictive decisions after unfavorable committee recommendations. Discordance was associated with lower degrees of advisory committee consensus and was more likely for agency actions focused on medical product safety than for novel approvals or supplemental indications. Statements by public speakers, advisory committee conflicts of interest, and media coverage were not associated with discordance between the committee and the agency. CONCLUSIONS:The FDA disagrees with the recommendation of its advisory committees a minority of the time, and in these cases it tends to be less likely to approve new products or supplemental indications and take safety actions. Deviations from recommendations thus offer an opportunity to understand the factors influencing decisions made by both the agency and its expert advisory groups.
Project description:<h4>Objectives</h4>To understand the publishing priorities, especially in relation to open access, of 10 UK biomedical research funders.<h4>Design</h4>Semistructured interviews.<h4>Setting</h4>10 UK biomedical research funders.<h4>Participants</h4>12 employees with responsibility for research management at 10 UK biomedical research funders; a purposive sample to represent a range of backgrounds and organisation types.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Publicly funded and large biomedical research funders are committed to open access publishing and are pleased with recent developments which have stimulated growth in this area. Smaller charitable funders are supportive of the aims of open access, but are concerned about the practical implications for their budgets and their funded researchers. Across the board, biomedical research funders are turning their attention to other priorities for sharing research outputs, including data, protocols and negative results. Further work is required to understand how smaller funders, including charitable funders, can support open access.
Project description:BACKGROUND: De Winter and Happee examined whether science based on selective publishing of significant results may be effective in accurate estimation of population effects, and whether this is even more effective than a science in which all results are published (i.e., a science without publication bias). Based on their simulation study they concluded that "selective publishing yields a more accurate meta-analytic estimation of the true effect than publishing everything, (and that) publishing nonreplicable results while placing null results in the file drawer can be beneficial for the scientific collective" (p.4). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using their scenario with a small to medium population effect size, we show that publishing everything is more effective for the scientific collective than selective publishing of significant results. Additionally, we examined a scenario with a null effect, which provides a more dramatic illustration of the superiority of publishing everything over selective publishing. CONCLUSION: Publishing everything is more effective than only reporting significant outcomes.
Project description:To explore the reasons for the dearth of minorities in Ph.D.-level biomedical research and identify opportunities to increase minority participation, we surveyed high-achieving alumni of an undergraduate biology enrichment program for underrepresented minorities. Respondents were asked to describe their career paths and to reflect on the influences that guided their career choices. We particularly probed for attitudes and experiences that influenced students to pursue a research career, as well as factors relevant to their choice between medicine (the dominant career choice) and basic science. In agreement with earlier studies, alumni strongly endorsed supplemental instruction as a mechanism for achieving excellence in basic science courses. Undergraduate research was seen as broadening by many and was transformative for half of the alumni who ultimately decided to pursue Ph.D.s in biomedical research. That group had expressed no interest in research careers at college entry and credits their undergraduate research experience with putting them on track toward a research career. A policy implication of these results is that making undergraduate research opportunities widely available to biology students (including "premed" students) in the context of a structured educational enrichment program should increase the number of minority students who choose to pursue biomedical Ph.D.s.