Navigating gender disparities in communication research leadership: academic recognition, career development, and compensation

Although the need for new physician-clinical scientists has never been greater, significant obstacles deter young physicians from careers in clinical research. Local and federal programs have sought to stimulate interest in clinical research among young physicians, medical students, and even undergraduates, but few formal programs have specifically focused on stimulating interest among residents in training. The recent implementation of strict duty hours regulations has provided residents with additional time to focus on career choices, and this has created an opportunity for training programs to offer new educational initiatives during residency. The authors present Tools of Human Investigation (THI), a two-week rotation offered during the second year of residency. The goals of THI are to provide seminar-based exposure to research methodologies, to impart the tools required to critically appraise the scientific literature, and to provide a small-group forum for career discussions. These three goals are achieved by drawing on a group of research faculty to lead sessions that combine didactics with career development guidance. A course like THI is one innovative way to stimulate interest in human research during residency that could help bridge the discontinuity between the research explorations promoted during medical school and the rigorous expectations of fellowship.

Historically, women's scientific contributions have been under-recognized. We investigated whether the number of citations, a key metric used for academic promotions and scientific productivity, differs in nephrology high impact publications based on author's gender. We identified randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from 2000-2021 in ten high impact journals. We assessed author gender, citations, h-index, m-index, years active publishing, education, and grant funding. The main predictor of interest was the gender of the first author. The main outcome was the standardized citation count for analysis of the selected publications. Additionally, we evaluated standardized author citation counts using the author, rather than paper. Among the selected publications, women were first authors of 65 (17.1%) and men of 315 manuscripts (82.9%). In crude analyses, publications with male first authors had a significantly higher median number of standardized citations (14 vs. 10, P=0.01). Adjusted analyses revealed, the m-index (β=29.48, P≤0.01) and journal impact factor (β=0.78, P<0.001) were significantly associated with the standardized citation index. In contrast, neither the gender of the first author (βmale gender=1.42, P=0.71) nor of the last author (βmale gender=8.89, P=0.38) were significantly associated with the standardized citations. Similarly, in adjusted analyses based on author profiles, male authorship was not significantly associated with the standardized author citation number (βmale gender=-7.79, P=0.08). Our study highlights marked disparities in the overall number of women publishing high impact nephrology trials and the number of papers with women scientists as first authors of high impact trials in the nephrology literature. Although crude citation rates were lower in papers with female first authors, the gender of the first author was not independently associated with citation metrics. Addressing gender disparities in academic recognition requires nuanced approaches extending beyond authorship and a broader focus on complex factors that influence academic recognition and scientific contributions.

The reform and opening-up of China have greatly improved the scale and quality of doctoral education for women. However, female doctors still face the “leaky pipeline” and the “unbreakable glass ceiling” in their development of academic careers. In this study, gender differences are investigated in doctoral graduates’ career choices, the level of educational institutions they attend, and their scientific research productivity after joining the institution. We analyzed the administrative data and scientific research publication information from ten years of doctoral graduates at a top research university in China. Results suggest that compared to their male counterparts, female doctors are more likely to pursue an academic career upon graduation, but they are also more likely to be employed in lower-level institutions as well as to publish Chinese scientific studies with lower influence and poorer quality. Moreover, gender differences in academic disciplines are heterogeneous. While academic career development for doctors in natural sciences is not gender-biased, female doctors in social sciences face the most significant challenges, and these results persist even after controlling for their scientific publications during graduate school. In other words, gender differences in academic career development are likely to result from gender symbols rather than differences in academic ability.

Celebrating the Latest Release of the Journal Impact Factors: Thinking Globally, Acting Locally.

Nurse scholars are wise to devote time and attention to successful publishing practices. Authors commonly tailor manuscripts for the journals to which they intend to submit, a practice widely viewed as prudent for both novice and experienced authors. Authors may choose to cite articles that impact their own work, previously published in the targeted journals, in recognition of the journals' contribution to the science. These decisions seem not only strategic and pragmatic but also ethical. However, how should an author respond if, on submitting a manuscript for publication, the editor requests that the author add citations of articles published in that journal, without giving any indication that the manuscript was lacking appropriate citations? Would the author feel pressured to comply with the editor's request for fear that the manuscript might not be published otherwise? The above scenario describes a practice known as ‘coercive self-citation‘, which has recently received attention in various scientific disciplines (Foo 2009, Wilhite & Fong 2012). Coercive self-citation refers to the editorial practice of requesting authors add intra-journal citations without suggesting specific articles relevant to the manuscript; in fact, in these instances, there is no indication that the manuscript is lacking appropriate citations at all (Wilhite & Fong 2012). The practice is essentially motivated by the intent to increase the journal impact factor, one of the primary bibliometric measures used to assess the quality of the science and, in many instances, to evaluate individuals for promotion, tenure, or external funding (Foo 2009). There is strategic incentive for editors to increase impact factors and for authors to publish in high impact journals. In 2012, Wilhite and Fong presented findings of a study exploring the extent and nature of coercive self-citation in various disciplines, demonstrating potential ethical quandaries faced by authors and editors. In brief, they found that coercive self-citation is a pervasive problem in many disciplines including economics, sociology, psychology, and predominantly business (medical sciences and nursing were not studied). The practice was more often concentrated in particular disciplines, likely because editors are more likely to coerce if other editors in the same discipline coerce. Finally, they found editors more commonly directed coercive requests toward assistant and associate professors (those with greater pressure to publish) rather than full professors, and they tended to target manuscripts with fewer authors, thus confronting fewer individuals who might react negatively to the request. These findings bring to light a complicated, rarely discussed issue in the ethics of publication. While there is little or no evidence, to our knowledge, that coercive self-citation is a problem in nursing, it could be an issue that nurse authors have faced or will encounter. Nurse editors must acknowledge the practice exists and decide to adopt the practice to enhance their own journals' impact factors or alternatively condemn it. Both authors and editors must consider the potential implications of this practice and make personal and collective decisions related to how to respond if faced with this potential publishing dilemma. To examine the implications of this practice, consider the following case and three alternate endings. Cheryl Graham just completed her first year as an assistant professor in the nursing department of a prestigious university. She spent the greater part of this year learning her role as a novice nurse educator. She knew she was behind on publishing as she had yet to publish work from her dissertation. In her second year at the university, she prepared and submitted a manuscript for publication in a highly ranked nursing journal, per the department chair's recommendation. Consider the three following editorial responses: Ending 1: Professor Graham was informed the manuscript would be accepted if she added citations to articles that had been previously published in the journal. No rationale for this request was given. The editor was reluctant to accept the manuscript without the addition of intra-journal citations related to the recent editorial board decision requiring all future manuscripts to include citations from the journal in an effort to increase the impact factor. Ending 2: Professor Graham was informed the manuscript would be accepted with minor revisions. The editor suggested she consider citing two important, related studies that were published recently in the journal. At a recent editorial board meeting, the importance of the journal impact factor was discussed, and it was determined that for the journal to remain high-impact, authors should be encouraged to include citations from the journal. This would not, however, determine whether an article would be published. Ending 3: Professor Graham was informed the manuscript would be accepted with minor revisions. Journal impact had been discussed recently at an editorial board meeting, and it was agreed that using intra-journal citations would help increase the journal impact factor. However, the members of the board decided against encouraging editors to request authors include these citations unless editors had specific, relevant articles to suggest authors review to strengthen the manuscript. Each of the three endings has different implications for the author, an academic with significant pressure to publish in high impact journals. In the first ending, Professor Graham must include intra-journal citations to be published. Considering the manuscript would not be published, should she refuse to add the citations because she believes this to be an unethical request? Would her acquiescence potentially encourage this editorial practice? Is it ethical for an editor to reject a publishable manuscript because intra-journal citations are lacking? Should the editor explain the purpose of the request or leave the author to wonder? In ending two, the editor suggested specific citations to help increase impact but did not insist that they be included; therefore, the author must determine if the citations would enhance the manuscript. In ending three, the author was asked to revise and resubmit with the understanding that the manuscript would be published with no additional citations. However, if impact factor is important to the journal's status and the author's career, should both the editor and author overlook this factor? Should the author make an effort to identify and include appropriate intra-journal citations? Should the editor ignore the issue of journal impact altogether or instead work to avoid coercion and promote proper understanding of journal quality versus impact in the discipline? From an ethical perspective, the two well-known theories of deontology and utilitarianism seem applicable here. Deontologists regard Immanuel Kant's well-known ‘categorical imperative’ as a useful criterion for judging the acceptability of the ethical principles guiding human actions. This imperative can be summarized as follows: one should never act except in such a way that he or she could support that behavior becoming universally acceptable (Beauchamp & Childress 2009). In the context of publication ethics, editors nor authors could rationally support this behavior becoming universally acceptable, for if both parties contributed to the artificial inflation of impact factors through coercive citation, this commonly used bibliometric measure would lose it's reliability and value altogether. Additionally, editorial coercion of authors could not be deemed universally acceptable since the behavior fundamentally challenges key ethical principles such as truthfulness, beneficence, and justice. Taking a slightly different perspective, utilitarianism may be another relevant ethical lens through which this issue can be viewed, particularly related to the second and third endings above. Through this lens, the right action is the one that produces the best result determined by the relevant theory of value (Beauchamp & Childress 2009). Increasing the impact factor could potentially promote the most good for the journal and author, and be ethically sound as long as the editor's intentions are clear to the author and no coercion exists. However, this view neglects to recognize that if widely adopted the practice of promoting inappropriate journal self-citations, even when no coercion exists, would ultimately decrease the reliability and value of the journal impact factor as it is currently calculated. Given the nature of coercive self-citation, authors can become both victims and co-conspirators (Wilhite & Fong 2012). Authors may feel uncomfortable adding unnecessary intra-journal citations; however, they will be rewarded if their manuscripts are published as a result, and their participation in this practice helps increase the impact factors of the journals in which they publish. Wilhite and Fong found that the majority of survey respondents (academics) condemned coercive self-citation, yet not surprisingly less than 7% thought an author would refuse an editor's request to add unnecessary citations. Given the pressure to publish, especially in high impact journals for reasons related to evaluation, it seems rather unjust to expect authors, often junior faculty, to be the only or primary party to take a stand on this issue of coercion. Authors make important scholarly contributions by conducting rigorous research and disseminating their findings in appropriate journals with appropriate, relevant citations. Quality and impact may not be interchangeable terms, particularly as reflected by a journal's impact factor alone (Daly & Robinson 2011, SchÜKlenk 2011). As Wilhite and Fong (2012) point out, there is a need to further study how patterns of coercive citation extend to the physical and biological sciences including nursing. However, in the meantime, academic associations such as the International Academy of Nursing Editors and professional nursing associations could help curb this potential practice by formally condemning it. Editors must collectively decide what is acceptable ethical behavior related to requesting or suggesting the addition of intra-journal citations. For instance, is the editor's response in the ending two situation described earlier considered an ethical, non-coercive request? If so, is the element of coercion the only to consider, or should editors strive to collectively acknowledge the differences between journal, quality and impact by recognizing the practical implications of artificially inflating journal impact factors? The American Nurses Association's (ANA) Code of Ethics for Nurses (Provision 9) calls nurses to collectively self-reflect and evaluate their values and ideals in order to “foster change within themselves, seeking to move the professional community toward its stated ideals” (ANA 2001). With strong, collective disapproval of coercive self-citation, perhaps individual editors would consider both the ethical and practical implications of this practice and be less likely to make such requests, thus moving our discipline closer to its stated ideals of intraprofessional integrity. Emily J. Jones, PhD, RNC-OB, is Assistant Professor of Nursing, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA. Email: emily.jones@umb.edu Deborah Lind Mahony, SD, RN, PNP-BC, is Clinical Associate Professor of Nursing, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA.

Abstract: This study explored academic advisors’ perceptions toward academic advising implemented at public universities of Malaysia. Using a qualitative research design with cross-site analysis strategy approach, interviews were conducted with eight academic advisors from four Malaysian public universities. Each interview session was assisted by the interview protocol. The interview was recorded and transcribed verbatim. The qualitative data was analysed in the form of thematic analysis with the assistance of NVivo12. Several themes emerged from the initial analysis. Further analysis using several coding and themes revealed one advanced theme namely the outcomes of academic advising and four sub-themes related to student development: academic development, personal development, social development, and career development. This study found that academic development, personal development and career development were the first, second, and third themes most stated while the subtheme social development was hardly stated by the academic advisors when asked regarding their perceptions towards academic advising. The finding of this study implies that social development of students was not part of academic advising tasks of academic advisors from the perspective of Malaysian public universities.

Developing a Society Journal Utilizing the Triad Framework

Objective: To develop a learner-centered curriculum introducing internal medicine residents to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for a successful academic career. Description: Much has been written about the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements that residents be trained in research.1 Indeed, our own program has successfully met this challenge.2 However, there is a growing recognition that a successful academic career requires more than just completing a successful research project. The goals of this curriculum development process were to identify areas academic clinicians felt were important to career development, to identify areas in which residents felt least informed, and to focus instruction in these areas. The authors developed a list of topics academic clinicians identified as important for career development. A list of 20 topics was submitted to residents, who were asked to rank each topic using a five-point Likert scale. We then chose the four topics with Likert means higher than 4.7 for incorporation into workshop for spring 2001. The workshops were (1) Academic Career Opportunities—an overview of the various types of academic careers, presented with six representative faculty describing career paths to becoming physician scientists, clinician educators, or scholarly clinicians; (2) How to Choose a Research Project and Optimize the Mentor Relationship—a discussion of project selection, mentor selection, and cultivation of the mentor relationship, between a senior scientist and three recent graduates of the residency; (3) How to Prepare a Curriculum Vitae, and Why a CV Is Important for Academic Acceptance and Promotion—an overview of academic ranks, the requirements for promotion, and the elements of a well-formed CV; and (4) Manuscript Preparation, Submission, and Review—a discussion of successful and unsuccessful manuscripts, errors and pitfalls to avoid in manuscript preparation and submission, and suggestions to optimize manuscript acceptance. Each workshop had predefined goals and objectives. An evaluation questionnaire consisting of six questions rated on a five-point Likert scale with a comment section was sent to the attendees to assess whether the goals and objectives had been met. The survey results were reviewed in a blinded fashion by the workshop coordinators. Discussion: We found that residents were interested in academic career development but had significant knowledge gaps. The evaluation process, particularly the comment section, was used to modify the 2001–02 sessions to better meet the needs of residents. For instance, we found that residents were extremely interested in academic rank and promotions, but they did not want to forego better CV development to learn about this. Consequently, we are separating these sessions. We are also conducting future workshops earlier in the academic year to give residents the opportunity to use skills in the formative stages of project development and to provide more time to cultivate the network of potential mentors. A longitudinal study of residents trained with this curriculum will chart their overall academic career development.

Fraud and Deceit in Medical Research

Academic career development: A review and research agenda

Career development is rarely formalized in the curricula of geriatric fellowship programs, and the training of new generations of academic leaders is challenging in the 1 year of fellowship training. To effectively prepare fellows for academic leadership, the University of Rochester's Division of Geriatrics, in collaboration with the Warner School of Graduate Education, created a yearlong course to achieve excellence in teaching and career development during the 1-year geriatric fellowship. Nine interdisciplinary geriatric medicine, dentistry, and psychiatry fellows completed the course in its initial year (2005/06). As participants, fellows gained the knowledge and experience to successfully develop and implement educational initiatives in various formats. Fellows acquired teaching and leadership skills necessary to succeed as clinician-educators in an academic setting and to communicate effectively with patients, families, and colleagues. Fellows completed a series of individual and group education projects, including academic portfolio development, curriculum vitae revision, abstract submission and poster presentation at national meetings, lay lecture series development, and geriatric grand rounds presentation. One hundred percent of fellows reported that the course positively affected their career development, with six of nine fellows choosing academic careers. The course provided opportunities to teach and assess all six of the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education core competencies. This academic career development course was intended to prepare geriatric fellows as the next generation of academic leaders as clinician-teacher-scholars. It could set a new standard for academic development during fellowship training and provide a model for national dissemination in other geriatric and subspecialty fellowship programs.

This study examines 4,313 research articles published in 94 Social Science Citation Indexed (SSCI) communication journals in October 2020-September 2021 to determine the journals’ research orientations and compare how journal-level attributes affect the three major citation metrics: Journal Impact Factor (JIF), SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR), and H5-indexes. Quantitative orientation and technology-related focus are the two most important journal attribute predictors of JIF. Journals publishing both quantitative and qualitative research in balanced proportion have the highest citation metrics in SJR and H5-index but not JIF. Our study also documents the continuing dominance of English language journals and publishers in communication scholarship.

Publications are commonly used to evaluate the productivity and impact of research programs. Traditional metrics examine publication impact through slowly accumulating academic citations. “Altmetrics” are a new way to describe early publication influence in nonacademic media/community spheres (news, tweets, and blogs). Articles with significant altmetric attention make a big splash of immediate impact, whereas papers with high rates of academic citation reflect ripple effects of influence over time. Past research has found weak associations between altmetrics and academic citations. However, no previous research has focused on clinical/translational research, which aims to translate scientific discoveries to public use. Further, no previous research has assessed the relationship between altmetrics and modern citation impact factors like the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). It is also unclear whether publication in journals with higher journal impact factors (JIFs) may drive both public attention and academic impact. We investigated whether early altmetric indicators of splash predict citation ripples, beyond the effect of the JIF. For a portfolio of 2188 publications supported by the NIH’s Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance from 2007–2020, we collected 2020 Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS), 2020 JIFs, and 2021 RCRs. All three were significantly correlated with one another. Regression analyses revealed that AAS significantly predicts later RCR, controlling for JIF and publication year. Findings indicate that in clinical/translational science, articles that make a big splash of altmetric attention have ripple effects through increased citation influence, which is not entirely due to publication in higher impact journals. Altmetric attention may be a useful early indicator of eventual influence and potential for translational advancement.

Sir, Impact factor is one of the most important tools in evaluating the quality of science journals. Perhaps, it is the only factor known to most researchers today and it has been used by many individuals and institutions. For instance, authors prefer to publish in high impact journals, editors make effort to increase the journal’s impact factor and academic institutions take impact factors into consideration for hiring, promotion or financial incentives. In addition, granting agencies use it to evaluate the quality of applicant’s publications, and governments rank academic institutions based on impact factors. Thomson Reuters, the owner of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI), a company specialized in producing various research analysis tools, produces impact factors of numerous journals. ISI generates Journal Citation Reports (JCR), a database containing information about journals including the number of articles and reviews, and impact factors. Impact factor is calculated using a predefined formula. For example, impact factor for the year 2000 is calculated based on the number of citations to 1998 articles in the year 2000 (A), the number of citations to 1999 articles in the year 2000 (B), the number of articles published in the year 1998 (C ) and the number of articles published in the year 1999 (D). Impact factor for 2000 is therefore (A þ B)/(C þ D). In recent years, more tools have been developed to allow researchers to analyze citation indices for various journals. Among those tools is Scopus (2009) citation database produced by Elsevier which is a large citations and publications database. It has various analytical tools including citation tracker and information about individual articles. Using the information provided by Scopus, one can calculate impact factor of any journal including Human Reproduction. In general, Human Reproduction publishes (or has published in the past) original articles, reviews, letters, editorials, notes, conference papers and short surveys. In JCR, impact factor is calculated based on citations to research articles and reviews. Using the same type of articles, we calculated impact factors of Human Reproduction for the years 2000–2006 with Scopus database, and we compared the results with those obtained from JCR. We found discrepancies in the number of articles and review articles produced by JCR and Scopus (data not shown). The impact factors reported by JCR are also consistently lower than those using Scopus database (Fig. 1). It is unclear which articles were used by JCR to calculate the impact factor. Indeed, a few authors have suggested that these articles should be listed on JCR website (Rossner et al., 2008). Similarly, Scopus could not disclose their exact method of data collection of the number of articles for any journal (personal communication). Identification of articles used for impact factors would be useful to evaluate whether journals with high impact factor are definitely better than those with lower impact factor. High quality articles lead to many citations increasing the impact factor. However, ordinary and yet highly controversial articles might also attract a good number of authors to reply or perform a similar study and cite the paper (Rossner et al., 2008). As a result, controversial articles may increase the impact factor of a journal. The number of authors per article and the number of review articles might influence the impact factor as well. It is possible that multi-author articles receive a higher number of self-citations (Sala and Brooks, 2008). Also, review articles tend to be quoted more often than original research papers. We should consider developing new tools to assess the real impact of scientific journals and differentiate between positive and negative impacts, both of them might lead to an increase in the impact factor of a journal.

Gastroenterology: A Field With Endless Career Opportunities for Physicians and Scientists