Project description:With breakthroughs in Natural Language Processing and Artificial Intelligence (AI), the usage of Large Language Models (LLMs) in academic research has increased tremendously. Models such as Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) are used by researchers in literature review, abstract screening, and manuscript drafting. However, these models also present the attendant challenge of providing ethically questionable scientific information. Our study provides a snapshot of global researchers' perception of current trends and future impacts of LLMs in research. Using a cross-sectional design, we surveyed 226 medical and paramedical researchers from 59 countries across 65 specialties, trained in the Global Clinical Scholars' Research Training certificate program of Harvard Medical School between 2020 and 2024. Majority (57.5%) of these participants practiced in an academic setting with a median of 7 (2,18) PubMed Indexed published articles. 198 respondents (87.6%) were aware of LLMs and those who were aware had higher number of publications (p < 0.001). 18.7% of the respondents who were aware (n = 37) had previously used LLMs in publications especially for grammatical errors and formatting (64.9%); however, most (40.5%) did not acknowledge its use in their papers. 50.8% of aware respondents (n = 95) predicted an overall positive future impact of LLMs while 32.6% were unsure of its scope. 52% of aware respondents (n = 102) believed that LLMs would have a major impact in areas such as grammatical errors and formatting (66.3%), revision and editing (57.2%), writing (57.2%) and literature review (54.2%). 58.1% of aware respondents were opined that journals should allow for use of AI in research and 78.3% believed that regulations should be put in place to avoid its abuse. Seeing the perception of researchers towards LLMs and the significant association between awareness of LLMs and number of published works, we emphasize the importance of developing comprehensive guidelines and ethical framework to govern the use of AI in academic research and address the current challenges.

Project description:The success of a scientist depends on their production of scientific papers and the impact factor of the journal in which they publish. Because most major scientific journals are published in English, success is related to publishing in this language. Currently, 98% of publications in science are written in English, including researchers from English as a Foreign Language (EFL) countries. Colombia is among the countries with the lowest English proficiency in the world. Thus, understanding the disadvantages that Colombians face in publishing is crucial to reducing global inequality in science. This paper quantifies the disadvantages that result from the language hegemony in scientific publishing by examining the additional costs that communicating in English creates in the production of articles. It was identified that more than 90% of the scientific articles published by Colombian researchers are in English, and that publishing in a second language creates additional financial costs to Colombian doctoral students and results in problems with reading comprehension, writing ease and time, and anxiety. Rejection or revision of their articles because of the English grammar was reported by 43.5% of the doctoral students, and 33% elected not to attend international conferences and meetings due to the mandatory use of English in oral presentations. Finally, among the translation/editing services reviewed, the cost per article is between one-quarter and one-half of a doctoral monthly salary in Colombia. Of particular note, we identified a positive correlation between English proficiency and higher socioeconomic origin of the researcher. Overall, this study exhibits the negative consequences of hegemony of English that preserves the global gap in science. Although having a common language is important for science communication, generating multilinguistic alternatives would promote diversity while conserving a communication channel. Such an effort should come from different actors and should not fall solely on EFL researchers.

Project description:Introduction and objectiveScientific reporting on major incidents, mass-casualty incidents (MCIs), and disasters is challenging and made difficult by the nature of the medical response. Many obstacles might explain why there are few and primarily non-heterogenous published articles available. This study examines the process of scientific reporting through first-hand experiences from authors of published reports. It aims to identify learning points and challenges that are important to address to mitigate and improve scientific reporting after major incidents.MethodsThis was a qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews. Participants were selected based on a comprehensive literature search. Ten researchers, who had published reports on major incidents, MCIs, or disasters from 2013-2018 were included, of both genders, from eight countries on three continents. The researchers reported on large fires, terrorist attacks, shootings, complex road accidents, transportation accidents, and earthquakes.ResultsThe interview was themed around initiation, workload, data collection, guidelines/templates, and motivation factors for reporting. The most challenging aspects of the reporting process proved to be a lack of dedicated time, difficulties concerning data collection, and structuring the report. Most researchers had no prior experience in reporting on major incidents. Guidelines and templates were often chosen based on how easily accessible and user-friendly they were.Conclusion and relevanceThere are few articles presenting first-hand experience from the process of scientific reporting on major incidents, MCIs, and disasters. This study presents motivation factors, challenges during reporting, and factors that affected the researchers' choice of reporting tools such as guidelines and templates. This study shows that the structural tools available for gathering data and writing scientific reports need to be more widely promoted to improve systematic reporting in Emergency and Disaster Medicine. Through gathering, comparing, and analyzing data, knowledge can be acquired to strengthen and improve responses to future major incidents. This study indicates that transparency and willingness to share information are requisite for forming a successful scientific report.

Project description:BackgroundLanguage concordance can increase access to care for patients with language barriers and improve patient health outcomes. However, systematically assessing and tracking physician non-English language skills remains uncommon in most health systems. This is a missed opportunity for health systems to maximize language-concordant care.ObjectiveTo determine barriers and facilitators to participation in non-English language proficiency assessment among primary care physicians.DesignQualitative, semi-structured interviews.ParticipantsEleven fully and partially bilingual primary care physicians from a large academic health system with a language certification program (using a clinician oral proficiency interview).ApproachInterviews aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to participation in non-English language assessment. Two researchers independently and iteratively coded transcripts using a thematic analysis approach with constant comparison to identify themes.Key resultsMost participants were women (N= 9; 82%). Participants reported proficiency in Cantonese, Mandarin, Russian, and Spanish. All fully bilingual participants (n=5) had passed the language assessment; of the partially bilingual participants (n=6), four did not test, one passed with marginal proficiency, and one did not pass. Three themes emerged as barriers to assessment participation: (1) beliefs about the negative consequences (emotional and material) of not passing the test, (2) time constraints and competing demands, and (3) challenging test format and structure. Four themes emerged as facilitators to increase assessment adoption: (1) messaging consistent with professional ethos, (2) organizational culture that incentivizes certification, (3) personal empowerment about language proficiency, and (4) individuals championing certification.ConclusionsTo increase language assessment participation and thus ensure quality language-concordant care, health systems must address the identified barriers physicians experience and leverage potential facilitators. Findings can inform health system interventions to standardize the requirements and process, increase transparency, provide resources for preparation and remediation, utilize messaging focused on patient care quality and safety, and incentivize participation.

Dataset Information

Publishing in English or Chinese: a qualitative analysis of Chinese researchers’ academic language choice

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets