OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the publication rate for orthopaedic trauma resident research projects that receive grant funding and the long-term academic involvement of the grant recipients.
METHODS:
METHODS: Retrospective.
METHODS: Publically available records for resident research grant recipients.
UNASSIGNED: Resident research grants on orthopaedic trauma topics from Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), AO North America (AONA), and Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation from 2000 to 2022.
UNASSIGNED: Subsequent related publications, grant size, time to publication, sustained academic involvement of the residents as measured by academic position, total number of publications, and h-index.
RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-seven orthopaedic trauma grants (OTA 117, AONA 225, and OREF 55) were identified. A total of 38% (151) of grants resulted in a publication with no significant difference between agencies (P = 0.94). The average amount awarded was $9,843, with no correlation to publication (P = 0.63). The mean time to publication was 3.57 ± 2.33 years. The time to publication for AONA was significantly longer than for OTA (4.14 vs. 2.83 years, P = 0.004). There was no difference in total publications, h-index, or NIH grants between grant recipients from different agencies. More OTA grant recipients held an academic position compared with AONA grant recipients (63% vs. 43%, P = 0.003). Grant awardees with initial publication success were 1.7 times as likely to have a future academic appointment (P = 0.014) and had 1.9 times the number of publications than those without (P = 0.001). Awardees with an h-index in the top quartile were significantly more likely to have published than those with an h-index in the bottom quartile (P = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half of orthopaedic trauma-related resident research grants resulted in a publication with comparable rates across agencies. Grant size did not predict publication success. Publication success was a positive predictor of continued academic involvement. Most publications occurred within 5 years, suggesting that these grants may be most helpful in career development if awarded during the first 1-2 years of a 5-year orthopaedic residency program.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Sharing research data has great potential to benefit science and society. However, data sharing is still not common practice. Since public research funding agencies have a particular impact on research and researchers, the question arises: Are public funding agencies morally obligated to promote data sharing? We argue from a research ethics perspective that public funding agencies have several pro tanto obligations requiring them to promote data sharing. However, there are also pro tanto obligations that speak against promoting data sharing in general as well as with regard to particular instruments of such promotion. We examine and weigh these obligations and conclude that all things considered funders ought to promote the sharing of data. Even the instrument of mandatory data sharing policies can be justified under certain conditions.

Recent regulatory reforms have favored expedited drug marketing and increased reliance on Phase IV clinical trials for safety and efficacy assurance. This study, utilizing ClinicalTrials.gov, assesses the characteristics of Phase IV trials, with at least one site in Canada, examining those funded by industry sponsors and those lacking industry funding. Additionally, it compares the publication status of industry-funded and non-industry-funded trials through a manual review of the medical literature. Between 2000 and 2022, 864 Phase IV trials were completed, with 480 (55.6%) receiving industry funding and 384 (44.4%) funded solely by non-industry sources. Industry-funded clinical trials were larger (mean 204 enrollees versus 70), more likely to be international (57.7% versus 9.6%) and reported results more promptly (1.21 years after completion versus 1.85 years), yet both types shared similar designs, outcomes, and completion times. Publication rates were 81.8% for industry-funded and 65.8% for non-industry-funded trials. The ClinicalTrials. gov registry displayed 48 inaccuracies in publication associations, raising concerns about its accuracy. Our findings underscore the existing institutional limitations in ensuring comprehensive reporting and publication of Phase IV trial results funded by both industry and non-industry sources.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

This study examines the influence of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding on the publication choices of dermatologists, particularly in terms of journal tiers and pay-to-publish (P2P) versus free-to-publish (F2P) models. Utilizing k-means clustering for journal ranking based on SCImago Journal Rank, h-index, and Impact Factor, journals were categorized into three tiers and 54,530 dermatology publications from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Authors were classified as Top NIH Funded or Non-Top NIH Funded according to Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings. The study finds significant differences in publication patterns, with Top NIH Funded researchers in Tier I journals demonstrating a balanced use of P2P and F2P models, while they preferred F2P models in Tier II and III journals. Non-Top NIH Funded authors, however, opted for P2P models more frequently across all tiers. These data suggest NIH funding allows researchers greater flexibility to publish in higher-tier journals despite publication fees, while prioritizing F2P models in lower-tier journals. Such a pattern indicates that funding status plays a critical role in strategic publication decisions, potentially impacting research visibility and subsequent funding. The study\'s dermatology focus limits broader applicability, warranting further research to explore additional factors like geographic location, author gender, and research design.

暂无摘要。