RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest in biomedical research can influence research results and drive research agendas away from public health priorities. Previous agenda-setting studies share two shortfalls: they only account for direct connections between academic institutions and firms, as well as potential bias based on researchers' personal beliefs. This paper's goal is to determine the key actors and contents of the prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, overcoming these shortfalls. METHODS: We performed a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 95,415 scientific articles published between 1999 and 2018 in the highest impact factor journals within HBMS, using the Web of Science database and the CorText platform. HBMS's prevailing knowledge network of institutions was proxied with network maps where nodes represent affiliations and edges the most frequent co-authorships. The content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda was depicted through network maps of prevalent multi-terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts. RESULTS: The HBMS research agendas of large private firms and leading academic institutions are intertwined. The prevailing HBMS agenda is mostly based on molecular biology (40% of the most frequent multi-terms), with an inclination towards cancer and cardiovascular research (15 and 8% of the most frequent multi-terms, respectively). Studies on pathogens and biological vectors related to recent epidemics are marginal (1% of the most frequent multi-terms). Content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda prioritizes research on pharmacological intervention over research on socio-environmental factors influencing disease onset or progression and overlooks, among others, the study of infectious diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmaceutical corporations contribute to set HBMS's prevailing research agenda, which is mainly focused on a few diseases and research topics. A more balanced research agenda, together with epistemological approaches that consider socio-environmental factors associated with disease spreading, could contribute to being better prepared to prevent and treat more diverse pathologies and to improve overall health outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Para que una persona sea merecedora de la autoría de una investigación debe haber realizado alguna contribución académica sustancial para que esta pudiera llevarse a cabo y, además, ser capaz de dar cuenta públicamente de la integridad de sus procesos y sus resultados. Este artículo resume: 1) la matriz propuesta por L. W. Roberts para contribuir a definir las autorías durante las etapas iniciales de la investigación, 2) los criterios de autoría del Comité Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas para definir quiénes merecen dichos créditos y quiénes no, 3) la taxonomía de 14 roles propuesta por la Declaración CRediT para transparentar las tareas realizadas por cada una de las personas proclamadas autoras de una investigación biomédica y 4) las principales conductas que degradan la transparencia de las autorías. (AU)

For a person to deserve an investigation authorship he/she must have made some substantial academic contribution so that that research could be carried out and, in addition, must be able to publicly account for the integrity of their processes and their results. This article summarizes: 1) the matrix proposed by Roberts to help defining authorship during the initial stages of the investigation; 2) authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors to define who deserves such credits and who does not; 3) the 14-role taxonomy proposed by the CRediT Declaration to transparent the tasks performed by each of the proclaimed authors of a biomedical research; 4) the main behaviors that degrade the transparency of authorships. (AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Predatory open access journals and predatory conferences' main purpose is to make profit rather than promoting good science. In Peru, the University Law 30220 asks that professors and lecturers undertake research duties at universities. Hence, nowadays part of this academic staff is required to write scientific articles. However, not all of them are experienced on how to write a scholarly paper. Thus, in the rush to comply with the publication requirements that their individual institutions demand from them, a great number of these professors and lecturers are likely to fall prey of predatory publishing, which already is happening in other developing nations. This publishing method is not only unethical because it produces low-quality articles but also is an egregious mismanagement of the resources that universities allocate to fund research. Moreover, the time and effort that the academic staff put to the production of low-quality papers also completely go to waste. Professors and lecturers who follow these bad practices should be penalized; this also avoids the emergence of fraudulent research authorities. Thus, vice-rectorates for research in Peruvian universities should take corrective or preventive measures to promote the production of high-quality papers by part of their academic staff.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to evaluate the relationship between authorship networking, socioeconomic factors, and scientific productivity across Latin America. METHODS: In a bibliometric analysis of cancer-related Latin-American publications, the relationship between authorship network indicators, sociodemographic factors, and number of peer-reviewed indexed publications per country was explored. A systematic review of the literature for cancer publications between 2000 and 2018 using the Scopus database limited to Latin-American authors was used for the construction of coauthorship and publication networks and their respective metrics. Sociodemographic variables including percentage of invested gross domestic product in research, population, and cancer incidence were also estimated. Multiple linear regression models were constructed to determine the relationship between productivity and the aforementioned variables. RESULTS: A total of 8,528 articles across nine countries were included. Brazil was the most productive nation with 41.8% of identified references followed by Mexico (16.6%) and Argentina (12.9%). Latin America experienced a 9% growth in number of publications across the studied time frame. After analyzing networking and sociodemographic variables, number of authors in a collaboration network and percentage of invested gross domestic product were associated with high productivity yielding a multiple regression model with an R2 value of 0.983. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that extensive authorship networking and a high investment in research strongly predict cancer-related productivity.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

One of the skills that is more in need to be strengthened in the medical area is the dissemination of knowledge. For this reason, it is necessary to provide elements that promote training in scientific writing. Identifying the most common problems when writing medical original articles for publication will provide useful resources that should contribute to the generation of knowledge. There are multiple reasons that intervene for an original article not to be accepted in a medical journal, among which failure to follow instructions for authors and methodological, design and structural problems stand out. However, the aspect that most influences and that is seldom pointed out, is inadequate writing of research manuscripts, which becomes evident in the different sections that make up manuscripts. All the above-mentioned factors are the responsibility of the authors, and therefore must be taken care of properly. The purpose of this article is to identify the most common mistakes when writing original medical manuscripts, which, if avoided, will increase the possibility for research papers to be accepted for publication.

Una de las habilidades que más requiere ser fortalecida en el área médica es la difusión de conocimiento, por tal motivo, es necesario brindar elementos que promuevan la capacitación en redacción científica. Identificar cuáles son los problemas más comunes al redactar artículos médicos originales para su publicación proporcionará recursos útiles que contribuyan a la generación de conocimiento. Existen diversos motivos que intervienen para que un artículo original no sea aceptado en una revista médica, entre los que destacan falta de apego a las instrucciones para autores, problemas metodológicos y de diseño, así como de estructura, sin embargo, el aspecto que más influye y pocas veces se señala, es la redacción inadecuada de los escritos de investigación, la cual se hace patente en las diferentes secciones que componen los manuscritos. Todos los factores mencionados son responsabilidad de los autores, por lo que deben ser atendidos apropiadamente. El presente escrito tiene como objetivo señalar los errores más comunes al redactar escritos médicos originales, los cuales, de ser evitados, incrementarán la posibilidad de que sus trabajos de investigación sean aceptados para su publicación.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction. Unjustified authorship or "gift authorship" is an inadequate practice of authorship that consists of naming as authors people who do not meet the authorship criteria. Reports of scientific research are often published as original articles in scientific journals and may present these inappropriate practices. Objectives. Determine the prevalence of gift authorship in original articles for publication. Materials and methods. Descriptive study in which the authorship contributions section of all the articles published between 2013 and the first quarter of 2017 in a Peruvian magazine was reviewed. Gift authorship was considered when an author did not meet at least one of the criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Results. Of the 209 original articles published, 11 were excluded because they did not report authorship contributions. The prevalence of gift authorship was 53.5% (106). The critreria least met were the final approval of the manuscript (23.2%) and the writing and critical review of this manuscript. (16.8%). Conclusions. It is necessary that educational institutions train researchers to distinguish between authorship and contribution. In addition, it is necessary that the journals request and corroborate the reported contributions.

Introducción. La autoría injustificada o 'autoría de regalo' es una práctica inadecuada que consiste en nombrar como autores a personas que no cumplen los criterios de autoría. Los informes de investigaciones científicas suelen ser publicados como artículos originales en revistas científicas y pueden presentar estas prácticas inadecuadas. Objetivos. Determinar la prevalencia de autoría de regalo en publicaciones de artículos originales. Materiales y métodos. Se trata de un estudio descriptivo en el cual se revisó la sección de contribuciones de autoría de todos los artículos publicados en una revista peruana desde enero de 2013 hasta marzo de 2017. Se consideró una autoría de regalo cuando un autor no cumplía con, al menos, uno de los criterios establecidos por el International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Resultados. De los 209 artículos originales publicados, 11 fueron excluidos debido a que no reportaron las contribuciones de autoría. La prevalencia de autoría de regalo de los 198 artículos incluidos fue de 106 (53,5 %). Los criterios que menos cumplieron fueron la aprobación final del manuscrito (23,2 %), y su redacción y revisión crítica (16,8 %). Conclusiones. Es necesario que las instituciones educativas capaciten a los investigadores para que discriminen entre autoría y contribución. Además, es necesario que las revistas soliciten y corroboren las contribuciones reportadas.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Resumen Introducción. La autoría injustificada o 'autoría de regalo' es una práctica inadecuada que consiste en nombrar como autores a personas que no cumplen los criterios de autoría. Los informes de investigaciones científicas suelen ser publicados como artículos originales en revistas científicas y pueden presentar estas prácticas inadecuadas. Objetivos. Determinar la prevalencia de autoría de regalo en publicaciones de artículos originales. Materiales y métodos. Se trata de un estudio descriptivo en el cual se revisó la sección de contribuciones de autoría de todos los artículos publicados en una revista peruana desde enero de 2013 hasta marzo de 2017. Se consideró una autoría de regalo cuando un autor no cumplía con, al menos, uno de los criterios establecidos por el International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Resultados. De los 209 artículos originales publicados, 11 fueron excluidos debido a que no reportaron las contribuciones de autoría. La prevalencia de autoría de regalo de los 198 artículos incluidos fue de 106 (53,5 %). Los criterios que menos cumplieron fueron la aprobación final del manuscrito (23,2 %), y su redacción y revisión crítica (16,8 %). Conclusiones. Es necesario que las instituciones educativas capaciten a los investigadores para que discriminen entre autoría y contribución. Además, es necesario que las revistas soliciten y corroboren las contribuciones reportadas.

Abstract Introduction: Unjustified authorship or "gift authorship" is an inadequate practice of authorship that consists of naming as authors people who do not meet the authorship criteria. Reports of scientific research are often published as original articles in scientific journals and may present these inappropriate practices. Objective: Determine the prevalence of gift authorship in original articles for publication. Materials and methods:. Descriptive study in which the authorship contributions section of all the articles published between 2013 and the first quarter of 2017 in a Peruvian magazine was reviewed. Gift authorship was considered when an author did not meet at least one of the criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Results: Of the 209 original articles published, 11 were excluded because they did not report authorship contributions. The prevalence of gift authorship was 53.5% (106). The critreria least met were the final approval of the manuscript (23.2%) and the writing and critical review of this manuscript. (16.8%). Conclusions: It is necessary that educational institutions train researchers to distinguish between authorship and contribution. In addition, it is necessary that the journals request and corroborate the reported contributions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Young authors may benefit by some advices on how to proceed when they decide to write a manuscript and submit it to a medical journal. They should start by selecting the journal considering the topic and nature of their study, how relevant the results seem and the interest it may have in editors and readers. A reasonable choice should consider new journals that publish good papers selected after external peer review. Then they should study and follow the Instructions to Authors of the chosen journal. A strong call is given to recognize and avoid "predatory journals". Specific statements refer to Instructions to Authors and language requirements by the journal, the need to follow "ICMJE Recommendations", the correct assignment of authorship, and a strict observance of ethical regulations in biomedical and clinical research. Special mention is given to provide a good abstract, in English, either descriptive or structured depending on the nature of their study. These advices may be useful as well as a reminder to older authors on how to improve their manuscripts before submitting them to a mainstream medical journal.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: University ranking systems and the publish-or-perish dictum, among other factors, are driving universities and researchers around the world to increase their research productivity. Authors frequently report multiple affiliations in published articles. It is not known if the reported institutional affiliations are real affiliations, which is when the universities have contributed substantially to the research conducted and to the published manuscript. This study aims to establish whether there is an empirical basis for author affiliation misrepresentation in authors with multiple institutional affiliations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This individual secondary data exploratory analysis on Scopus-indexed articles for 2016 will search all authors who report multiple institutional affiliations in which at least one of the affiliations is to a Chilean university. We will consider that misrepresentation of an affiliation is more likely when it is not possible to verify objectively a link between the author and the mentioned institution through institutional websites. If we cannot corroborate the author affiliation, we will consider this a finding of potential misrepresentation of the affiliation. We will summarise results with descriptive statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee of Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Resolution No. 261, and dated January 15, 2018. Results will be submitted to the World Conference on Research Integrity, among other meetings on publication ethics and research integrity, and will be published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Young authors may benefit by some advices on how to proceed when they decide to write a manuscript and submit it to a medical journal. They should start by selecting the journal considering the topic and nature of their study, how relevant the results seem and the interest it may have in editors and readers. A reasonable choice should consider new journals that publish good papers selected after external peer review. Then they should study and follow the Instructions to Authors of the chosen journal. A strong call is given to recognize and avoid "predatory journals". Specific statements refer to Instructions to Authors and language requirements by the journal, the need to follow "ICMJE Recommendations", the correct assignment of authorship, and a strict observance of ethical regulations in biomedical and clinical research. Special mention is given to provide a good abstract, in English, either descriptive or structured depending on the nature of their study. These advices may be useful as well as a reminder to older authors on how to improve their manuscripts before submitting them to a mainstream medical journal.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)