MyMedR

Displaying publications 21 - 25 of 25 in total

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Perceptions of Scholars in the Field of Economics on Co-Authorship Associations: Evidence from an International Survey

Kumar S, Ratnavelu K

PLoS One, 2016;11(6):e0157633.
PMID: 27322645 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157633

Scholars (n = 580) from 69 countries who had contributed articles in the field of Economics during the year 2015 participated in a survey that gauged their perceptions of various aspects of co-authorship, including its benefits, motivations, working relationships, order of authorship and association preferences. Among the main findings, significant differences emerged in the proportion of co-authored papers based on age, gender and number of years the researchers had spent in their present institution. Female scholars had a greater proportion of co-authored papers than male scholars. Respondents considered improved quality of paper, contribution of mutual expertise, and division of labor as the biggest benefits of and motivation for co-authorship. Contrary to common perceptions that Economics researchers used a predominantly alphabetical order of authorship, our study found that a considerable percentage of respondents (34.5%) had practiced an order of authorship based on the significance of the authors' contribution to the work. The relative importance of tasks differed significantly according to whether researchers co-authored as mentors or co-authored as colleagues. Lastly, researchers were found to associate, to varying degrees, with other researchers based on socio-academic parameters, such as nationality, ethnicity, gender, professional position and friendship. The study indicates that Economics authors perceive co-authorship as a rewarding endeavor. Nonetheless, the level of contribution and even the choice of association itself as a co-author depends to a great extent on the type of working relationship and socio-academic factors.

Matched MeSH terms: Authorship*
Fulltext Report of the third Asian Prostate Cancer study meeting

Lojanapiwat B, Lee JY, Gang Z, Kim CS, Fai NC, Hakim L, et al.

Prostate Int, 2019 Jun;7(2):60-67.
PMID: 31384607 DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2018.06.001

The Asian Prostate Cancer (A-CaP) study is an Asia-wide initiative that was launched in December 2015 in Tokyo, Japan, with the objective of surveying information about patients who have received a histopathological diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) and are undergoing treatment and clarifying distribution of staging, the actual status of treatment choices, and treatment outcomes. The study aims to clarify the clinical situation for PCa in Asia and use the outcomes for the purposes of international comparison. Following the first meeting in Tokyo in December 2015, the second A-CaP meeting was held in Seoul, Korea, in September 2016. This, the third A-CaP meeting, was held on October 14, 2017, in Chiang Mai, Thailand, with the participation of members and collaborators from 12 countries and regions. In the meeting, participating countries and regions presented the current status of data collection, and the A-CaP office presented a preliminary analysis of the registered cases received from each country and region. Participants discussed ongoing challenges relating to data input and collection, institutional, and legislative issues that may present barriers to data sharing, and the outlook for further patient registrations through to the end of the registration period in December 2018. In addition to A-CaP-specific discussions, a series of special lectures were also delivered on the situation for health insurance in the United States, the correlation between insurance coverage and PCa outcomes, and the outlook for robotic surgery in the Asia-Pacific region. Members also confirmed the principles of authorship in collaborative studies, with a view to publishing original articles based on A-CaP data in the future.

Matched MeSH terms: Authorship
Fulltext Research on Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs in Malaysia: A Bibliometric Analysis

Zin CS, Nozid NR, Razak AA, Hashim SN, Mazlan NA, Daud N, et al.

J Pharm Bioallied Sci, 2020 Nov;12(Suppl 2):S707-S710.
PMID: 33828365 DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_282_19

Background: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most common analgesics used for pain relief. Adverse effects of NSAIDs range from gastrointestinal tract disturbances to increased risk of bleeding, renal injury, and myocardial infarction. In Malaysia, the research productivity of NSAIDs is not well explored.
Objective: This study examined research productivity of NSAIDs in Malaysia.
Materials and Methods: This bibliometric study included all published research articles on NSAIDs from 1979 to 2018, which were conducted in Malaysia. The search databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus were used. Search terms included NSAIDs and specific drug names such as ibuprofen, celecoxib, and naproxen. Growth of publication, authorship pattern, citation analysis, journal index, type of studies, and geographical distribution of institutions publishing articles on NSAIDs were measured.
Results: Overall, 111 articles were retrieved from 1979 to 2018. The annual productivity of articles throughout the study fluctuated in which the highest productivity was in 2018, 12.61% (n = 14). Majority of articles were multiple authored, 99.10% (n = 109), and University of Science Malaysia (USM) produced the highest number of articles (30 articles). Most of the articles were International Scientific Indexing-indexed, 52.25% (n = 58), and the main issue studied in most of the articles was the drug formulation of NSAIDs.
Conclusion: The growth of NSAID research in Malaysia was slow, and the majority of research involved laboratory studies. Clinical studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of NSAIDs in patients, particularly using large healthcare databases are still lacking.

Matched MeSH terms: Authorship
Why research productivity of medical faculty declines after attaining professor rank? A multi-center study from Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Pakistan

Guraya SY, Khoshhal KI, Yusoff MSB, Khan MA

Med Teach, 2018 09;40(sup1):S83-S89.
PMID: 29730951 DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1465532

OBJECTIVES: Research has shown a fall of research productivity of faculty after their promotion to professor rank. This study explores the factors that lead to this decline in research productivity of professors in medical discipline.
METHODS: A 20-item questionnaire was distributed online to medical professors of a Saudi, Malaysian and a Pakistani medical school. The participants were instructed to select their responses on a 5-point Likert's scale and the collected data was analyzed for quantitative and qualitative results.
RESULTS: Of 161, 110 responded; response rate of 68.3%. About 35% professors spent 1-4 hours and 2% spent 19-25 hours per week for research. As many as 7% did not publish a single article and 29% had published 10 or more articles after attaining professor rank. During the last two years, 44% professors had published 5 or more research articles. Majority pointed out a lack of research support and funds, administrative burden and difficulty in data collection as the main obstacles to their research.
CONCLUSIONS: This research has identified time constraints and insufficient support for research as key barriers to medical professors' research productivity. Financial and technical support and lesser administrative work load are some suggested remedies to foster the professors' research output.

Matched MeSH terms: Authorship
In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct from the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities

Olesen AP, Amin L, Mahadi Z

Sci Eng Ethics, 2018 12;24(6):1755-1776.
PMID: 29249021 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9997-9

Published data and studies on research misconduct, which focuses on researchers in Malaysia, is still lacking, therefore, we decided that this was an area for investigation. This study provides qualitative results for the examined issues through series of in-depth interviews with 21 researchers and lecturers in various universities in Malaysia. The aims of this study were to investigate the researchers' opinions and perceptions regarding what they considered to be research misconduct, their experience with such misconduct, and the factors that contribute to research misconduct. Our findings suggest that the most common research misconducts that are currently being witnessed in Malaysian universities are plagiarism and authorship disputes, however, researchers seldom report incidents of research misconduct because it takes too much time, effort and work to report them, and some are just afraid of repercussions when they do report it. This suggests possible loopholes in the monitoring system, which may allow some researchers to bypass it and engage in misconduct. This study also highlights the structural and individual factors as the most influential factors when it comes to research misconduct besides organizational, situational and cultural factors. Finally, this study highlights the concerns of all participants regarding the 'publish or perish' pressure that they believe would lead to a hostile working environment, thus enhancing research misconduct, as researchers tend to think about their own performance rather than that of whole team or faculty. Consequently this weakens the interpersonal relationships among researchers, which may compromise the teaching and supervision of junior researchers and research students.

Matched MeSH terms: Authorship