Dataset Information

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis.

ABSTRACT: Objective:This study uses survey research methods to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional repository (IR) landscape in medical schools and academic health centers. Methods:Members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) were surveyed about their IRs. The authors used a mixed-methods approach of a survey and qualitative content analysis to identify common themes. Results:Survey results indicate that a large majority of responding medical schools and academic health centers have or are implementing an IR (35 out of 50, 70%). Of these, 60% (21 institutions) participate in an institution-wide IR rather than administer their own repositories. Much of the archived content is grey literature that has not already been published, but the percentage of original content varies greatly among institutions. The majority (57.1%) of respondent institutions are not considering an open access policy or mandate. Most institutions (71.4%) reported that repository staff are depositing materials on behalf of users. DSpace and bepress Digital Commons are the most popular repository platforms in this community. The planned enhancements that were most frequently reported were implementing a discovery layer and ORCID integration. The majority of respondents (54.3%) do not plan to migrate to a different platform in the foreseeable future. Analysis of respondent comments identified the following themes: integration, redundancy, and reporting; alternatives and exploration; uniqueness; participation; and funding and operations. Conclusions:The study results capture a view of the IR landscape in medical schools and academic health centers and help readers understand what services their peers have in place as well as their plans for future developments.

SUBMITTER: Kipnis DG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6774547 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis.

Kipnis Daniel G DG Palmer Lisa A LA Kubilius Ramune K RK

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20191001 4

<h4>Objective</h4>This study uses survey research methods to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional repository (IR) landscape in medical schools and academic health centers.<h4>Methods</h4>Members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) were surveyed about their IRs. The authors used a mixed-methods approach of a survey and qualitative content analysis to identify common themes.<h4>Results</h4>Survey results indicate that a large majority of responding medical ...[more]

PMID: 31607806

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcademic Medical Centers (AMCs) must simultaneously serve different purposes: Delivery of high quality healthcare services to patients, as the main mission, supported by other core missions such as academic activities, i.e., researching, teaching and tutoring, while maintaining solvency. This study aims to develop a methodology for constructing models evaluating the academic value provided by AMCs and implementing it at the largest AMC in Israel.MethodsThirty five practiced educators and researchers, academic experts, faculty members and executives, all employed by a metropolitan 1500-bed AMC, were involved in developing academic quality indicators. First, an initial list of AMCs' academic quality indicators was drafted, using a literature review and consulting scholars. Afterwards, additional data and preferences were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews, complemented by a three-round Delphi Panel. Finally, the methodology for constructing a model evaluating the academic value provided by the AMC was developed.ResultsThe composite academic quality indicators methodology consists of nine indicators (relative weight in parentheses): 'Scientific Publications Value' (18.7%), 'Completed Studies' (13.5%), 'Authors Value' (13.0%), 'Residents Quality' (11.3%), 'Competitive Grants Budget' (10.2%), 'Academic Training' (8.7%), 'Academic Positions' (8.3%), 'Number of Studies' (8.3%) and 'Academic Supervision' (8.0%). These indicators were grouped into three core categories: 'Education', 'Research' and 'Publications', having almost the same importance on a scale from zero to one (0-1), i.e., 0.363, 0.320, and 0.317, respectively. The results demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach-alpha range: 0.79-0.86).ConclusionsWe have found a gap in the ability to measure academic value provided by AMCs. The main contribution of this research is the development of methodology for constructing evaluation models for AMCs academic performance. Further studies are needed to further test the validity and reliability of the proposed methodology at other sites.

Project description:ImportanceThe proportion of women at the rank of full professor in US medical schools has not increased since 1980 and remains below that of men. Whether differences in age, experience, specialty, and research productivity between sexes explain persistent disparities in faculty rank has not been studied.ObjectiveTo analyze sex differences in faculty rank among US academic physicians.Design, setting, and participantsWe analyzed sex differences in faculty rank using a cross-sectional comprehensive database of US physicians with medical school faculty appointments in 2014 (91,073 physicians; 9.1% of all US physicians), linked to information on physician sex, age, years since residency, specialty, authored publications, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, and clinical trial investigation. We estimated sex differences in full professorship, as well as a combined outcome of associate or full professorship, adjusting for these factors in a multilevel (hierarchical) model. We also analyzed how sex differences varied with specialty and whether differences were more prevalent at schools ranked highly in research.ExposuresPhysician sex.Main outcomes and measuresAcademic faculty rank.ResultsIn all, there were 30,464 women who were medical faculty vs 60,609 men. Of those, 3623 women (11.9%) vs 17,354 men (28.6%) had full-professor appointments, for an absolute difference of -16.7% (95% CI, -17.3% to -16.2%). Women faculty were younger and disproportionately represented in internal medicine and pediatrics. The mean total number of publications for women was 11.6 vs 24.8 for men, for a difference of -13.2 (95% CI, -13.6 to -12.7); the mean first- or last-author publications for women was 5.9 vs 13.7 for men, for a difference of -7.8 (95% CI, -8.1 to -7.5). Among 9.1% of medical faculty with an NIH grant, 6.8% (2059 of 30,464) were women and 10.3% (6237 of 60,609) were men, for a difference of -3.5% (95% CI, -3.9% to -3.1%). In all, 6.4% of women vs 8.8% of men had a trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, for a difference of -2.4% (95% CI, -2.8% to -2.0%). After multivariable adjustment, women were less likely than men to have achieved full-professor status (absolute adjusted difference in proportion, -3.8%; 95% CI, -4.4% to -3.3%). Sex-differences in full professorship were present across all specialties and did not vary according to whether a physician's medical school was ranked highly in terms of research funding.Conclusions and relevanceAmong physicians with faculty appointments at US medical schools, there were sex differences in academic faculty rank, with women substantially less likely than men to be full professors, after accounting for age, experience, specialty, and measures of research productivity.

Project description:BackgroundUniversity Medical Centers (UMCs) must do their part for clinical trial transparency by fostering practices such as prospective registration, timely results reporting, and open access. However, research institutions are often unaware of their performance on these practices. Baseline assessments of these practices would highlight where there is room for change and empower UMCs to support improvement. We performed a status quo analysis of established clinical trial registration and reporting practices at German UMCs and developed a dashboard to communicate these baseline assessments with UMC leadership and the wider research community.Methods and findingsWe developed and applied a semiautomated approach to assess adherence to established transparency practices in a cohort of interventional trials and associated results publications. Trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), led by a German UMC, and reported as complete between 2009 and 2017. To assess adherence to transparency practices, we identified results publications associated to trials and applied automated methods at the level of registry data (e.g., prospective registration) and publications (e.g., open access). We also obtained summary results reporting rates of due trials registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) and conducted at German UMCs from the EU Trials Tracker. We developed an interactive dashboard to display these results across all UMCs and at the level of single UMCs. Our study included and assessed 2,895 interventional trials led by 35 German UMCs. Across all UMCs, prospective registration increased from 33% (n = 58/178) to 75% (n = 144/193) for trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and from 0% (n = 0/44) to 79% (n = 19/24) for trials registered in DRKS over the period considered. Of trials with a results publication, 38% (n = 714/1,895) reported the trial registration number in the publication abstract. In turn, 58% (n = 861/1,493) of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and 23% (n = 111/474) of trials registered in DRKS linked the publication in the registration. In contrast to recent increases in summary results reporting of drug trials in the EUCTR, 8% (n = 191/2,253) and 3% (n = 20/642) of due trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and DRKS, respectively, had summary results in the registry. Across trial completion years, timely results reporting (within 2 years of trial completion) as a manuscript publication or as summary results was 41% (n = 1,198/2,892). The proportion of openly accessible trial publications steadily increased from 42% (n = 16/38) to 74% (n = 72/97) over the period considered. A limitation of this study is that some of the methods used to assess the transparency practices in this dashboard rely on registry data being accurate and up-to-date.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that it is feasible to assess and inform individual UMCs on their performance on clinical trial transparency in a reproducible and publicly accessible way. Beyond helping institutions assess how they perform in relation to mandates or their institutional policy, the dashboard may inform interventions to increase the uptake of clinical transparency practices and serve to evaluate the impact of these interventions.

Dataset Information

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis.

Publications

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets