The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration

Evaluating interdisciplinary research: Disparate outcomes for topic and knowledge base

Interdisciplinary research is essential for addressing complex global challenges, but there are concerns that scientific institutions like journals select against it. Prior work has focused largely on how interdisciplinarity relates to outcomes for published papers, but which papers get accepted for publication in the first place is unclear. Furthermore, journals may evaluate two key dimensions of interdisciplinarity,-topic and knowledge base,-differently. Topic interdisciplinarity (measured through title and abstract) may incur evaluation penalties by cutting across disciplinary evaluation standards and threatening symbolic boundaries, while knowledge-base interdisciplinarity (measured through references) may incur benefits by combining a large pool of nonredundant information. Evaluations may also depend on how well these dimensions align with each other and the intended audience. We test these arguments using data on 128,950 submissions to 62 journals across STEM disciplines, including both accepted and rejected manuscripts. We find that a 1SD increase in knowledge-base interdisciplinarity is associated with a 0.9 percentage-point higher acceptance probability, while a 1SD increase in topic interdisciplinarity corresponds to a 1.2 percentage-point lower acceptance probability. However, the penalty for high topic-interdisciplinarity diminishes when knowledge-base interdisciplinarity is also high, and when submitted to journals designated as "interdisciplinary." These findings challenge the narrative of a uniform bias against interdisciplinary research and highlight the importance of distinguishing between its dimensions, as well as their alignment with each other and the intended audience.

Lung Cancer Screening Participation Among Indigenous Peoples Worldwide: A Systematic Review of Challenges and Opportunities

ISSUE ADDRESSED

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is crucial for Indigenous populations due to their higher lung cancer incidence rates and poorer outcomes. Despite efforts to establish LCS programmes, evidence on LCS cost-effectiveness, participation rates, facilitators and barriers for Indigenous peoples remains limited. This systematic review aims to address this gap by reviewing available evidence.

METHODS

This systematic review conducted searches for relevant articles in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Google Scholar and references/citations of included articles.

RESULTS

Fifteen out of 19 eligible studies were conducted in the USA, three in New Zealand and one in Canada, with 23 715 Indigenous participants in the 15 quantitative studies. New Zealand studies found that LCS is cost-effective for Māori, while the participation rate for American Indian/Alaska Natives (4.7%) was lower than for White Americans (21.7%). Facilitators included positive views of LCS, trust in Indigenous-centred care/providers, trusted invitations, family and community support, transportation or flexible scheduling, culturally competent navigators and detailed health education. Barriers included limited knowledge about LCS/eligibility criteria, fear of the screening process or cancer diagnosis, mistrust or negative experiences in healthcare, cost and time constraints, limited transportation/resources and non-inclusive eligibility criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed to understand the LCS among Indigenous peoples. Enhancing LCS participation requires leveraging positive experiences and addressing barriers with culturally tailored education and strategic resource allocation. SO WHAT?: For Australia and similar countries preparing for LCSPs, global evidence highlights the need for adequate resources, integration of Indigenous cultural practices and active involvement of Indigenous communities in programme planning.

Implementation and evaluation of a group peer mentoring and leadership development program for research faculty in academic medicine

Introduction

Research faculty often experience poor mentoring, low vitality, and burnout. We report on our logic model inputs, activities, measurable outcomes, and impact of a novel mentoring intervention for biomedical research faculty: the C-Change Mentoring & Leadership Institute. We present a) a detailed description of the curriculum and process, b) evaluation of the program's mentoring effectiveness from the perspective of participants, and c) documentation of mentoring correlated with key positive outcomes.

Methods

A yearlong facilitated group peer mentoring program that convened quarterly in person was conducted twice (2020-2022) as part of an NIH-funded randomized controlled study. The culture change intervention aimed to increase faculty vitality, career advancement, and cross-cultural competence through structured career planning and learning of skills essential for advancement and leadership in academic medicine. Participants were 40 midcareer MD and PhD research faculty, half women, and half underrepresented by race or ethnicity from 27 US medical schools.

Results

Participants highly rated their mentoring received at the Institute. Extent of effective mentoring experienced correlated strongly with the measurable outcomes of enhanced vitality, self-efficacy in career advancement, research and work-life integration, feelings of inclusion in the program, valuing diversity, and skills for addressing inequity.

Conclusions

The mentoring model fully included men and women and historically underrepresented persons in medicine and minimized problems of power, gender, race, and ethnicity discordance. The intervention successfully addressed the urgencies of sustaining faculty vitality, developing faculty careers, facilitating cross-cultural engagement and inclusion, and contributing to cultivating cultures of inclusive excellence in academic medicine.

Citation manipulation through citation mills and pre-print servers

Citations are widely considered in scientists' evaluation. As such, scientists may be incentivized to inflate their citation counts. While previous literature has examined self-citations and citation cartels, it remains unclear whether scientists can purchase citations. Here, we compile a dataset of ~1.6 million profiles on Google Scholar to examine instances of citation fraud on the platform. We survey faculty at highly-ranked universities, and confirm that Google Scholar is widely used when evaluating scientists. We then engage with a citation-boosting service, and manage to purchase 50 citations while assuming the identity of a fictional author. Taken as a whole, our findings bring to light new forms of citation manipulation, and emphasize the need to look beyond citation counts.

Building bridges: allyship as a catalyst for gender diversity and inclusion in experimental biology communities

Diversity drives innovation and creativity, directly contributing to scientific excellence. However, achieving equity in academia, including in experimental biology fields such as biomechanics and comparative physiology, remains a significant challenge, with women and other historically marginalized groups underrepresented, especially in more senior roles. When considering gender, the disparity is often linked to difficulties in balancing family responsibilities with demanding careers, along with lower 'academic visibility', as evidenced by fewer professional awards for women scientists. Many successful women who balance career and family keep their family lives private, making these aspects invisible to early career scholars, and thus depriving them of role models. To help close the gender gap, in this Perspective, we propose 10 actionable strategies for scholars at all career stages to promote gender diversity and inclusion through active allyship. Although we focus on gender diversity, these strategies can be broadly applied to harness the benefits of other diversity dimensions (e.g. age or ethnicity). We argue that embracing allyship benefits individual scientists, their research groups, the quality of their research, the broader research community and society at large by enhancing collective scientific output and inspiring the next generation of scientists.

Increasing diversity in the nutrition, obesity, and diabetes biomedical workforce: the BRIDGES consortium

Scientists from diverse backgrounds are underrepresented (UR) in academia. This lack of diversity impedes scientific discovery and innovation. UR scientists tend to conduct research on issues relevant to UR populations, including chronic disease prevention and management, and health disparities. Difficulty in attaining grant funding is a major barrier preventing UR scientists from remaining in academia. Programs designed to provide UR scientists with career development training can help increase the number of UR scientists who obtain grant funding. These programs have shown some level of success, yet none have been specifically designed to target scientists conducting research pertaining to the interests of the National Institute for Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Disorders (NIDDK). Here, the Bringing Resources to Increase Diversity, Growth, Equity, and Scholarship for Obesity, Nutrition, and Diabetes Research (BRIDGES) consortium is described. BRIDGES is the first program to be funded by the NIDDK designed to increase the success rate of UR scientists competing for and obtaining funding related to nutrition, obesity, and diabetes. Four programs across the country, located in California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Louisiana, were funded in 2022. By design, some programmatic elements are shared across each of the funded programs, including mentoring and a pilot and feasibility funding program. Some elements are specific to each program. The BRIDGES program is expected to impact a substantial number of UR scientists who are then likely to have an influence on nutrition, obesity, diabetes, and health disparities research, shaping NIH priorities, and future scientists conducting NIDDK-related research.

Patterns of diversity in biomedical coauthorships: An analysis across authors' ethnicity, gender, age, and expertise

Multiple studies have linked diversity in scientific collaborations to innovative and impactful research. Here, we explore how different diversity indices-ethnicity, gender, academic age, and topical expertise-interact and thereby influence scientific impact. Leveraging nearly 900,000 biomedical journal articles from PubMed, published in major journals between 1991 and 2014, we investigate the nuanced relationships among these diversity indices and their collective influence on research outcomes. By systematically varying model parametrizations, we assess the robustness of the observed relationships and examine multiple methodological choices. Our findings reveal a consistent pattern of demographic homophily, where scientists tend to collaborate with others who share similar ethnic and gender backgrounds. While each diversity index correlates significantly with impact when considered individually, gender diversity and topical expertise emerge as the strongest positive predictors of impact after accounting for key covariates. However, the association between diversity and impact is moderated by the number of collaborating authors, with larger teams sometimes showing opposite trends due to interactions between the computed diversity indices and team size. Despite this complexity, the practical drivers of scientific impact for an article remain the journal of publication, authors' prior citation rate, and the number of co-authors. On further examining expertise diversity through three separate dimensions: variety, balance, and disparity, our findings indicate that impactful teams balance a wide range of subject matter expertise while maintaining a focused connection on closely related topics. These findings highlight the importance of strategic team composition and underline the significance of team diversity in scientific research.

Postdoc publications and citations link to academic retention and faculty success

Postdoctoral training is a career stage often described as a demanding and anxiety-laden time when many promising PhDs see their academic dreams slip away due to circumstances beyond their control. We use a unique dataset of academic publishing and careers to chart the more or less successful postdoctoral paths. We build a measure of academic success on the citation patterns two to five years into a faculty career. Then, we monitor how students' postdoc positions-in terms of relocation, change of topic, and early well-cited papers-relate to their early-career success. One key finding is that the postdoc period seems more important than the doctoral training to achieve this form of success. This is especially interesting in light of the many studies of academic faculty hiring that link Ph.D. granting institutions and hires, omitting the postdoc stage. Another group of findings can be summarized as a Goldilocks principle: It seems beneficial to change one's direction, but not too much.

Impact of Financial Incentives and Department Size on Scholarly Activity Output

PURPOSE

Family medicine research is essential to improving population health. It has the unique ability to answer questions about health care outcomes and use those insights to impact communities. Increasing research capacity continues to be a challenge; however, recent literature has touted the success of incentivization in several academic medicine specialties. We used the 2022 CERA annual Family Medicine Department Chair survey to characterize the amount and type of scholarly activities by institutional financial incentive status (yes or no) and type (flat vs variable amount), to investigate the relationship between financial incentives and scholarly output.

METHODS

Questions included targeted demographic variables, institutional incentives, and family medicine department scholarly output. Summary statistics and logistical regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The overall survey response rate was 47.1% (106/225). Respondents reported financial incentives were allowed at 41 (38.7%) of 106 institutions. Of these, 19 (17.9%) reported clinical faculty received cash-based incentives, while 34 (32.1%) received noncash-based incentives for engaging in scholarly activity. The main barriers to offering financial incentives were institutional budget constraints and department culture or tradition. Financial incentives were not statistically associated with scholarly output; however, faculty size was statistically significant for giving more than 6 presentations (adjusted odds ratio = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.054-0.739).

CONCLUSIONS

Institutions aiming to increase their family medicine department scholarly productivity might benefit from focusing resources on increasing their faculty size such as adding consultants, statistical analysts, grant writers, or other research staff.

Building a diverse national research advisory board

In healthcare and medical research, advisory boards are now commonplace, but most boards consist of a relatively homogenous, geographically collocated group, often demonstrating demographic imbalance. It is crucial to include individuals from diverse backgrounds on community advisory boards for healthcare and medical research to address ongoing health disparities and ensure studies are more culturally competent so that we can achieve more inclusive representation. We conducted purposeful recruitment to attract a demographically diverse group of community members across the United States (U.S.) to partner with the All of Us Research Program to inform our strategies including program recruitment, engagement, retention, and incentives. Recruitment of a diverse group of advisors and purposeful community building has created a psychologically safe environment where members openly share their opinions, thoughts, and perspectives to shape various aspects of this ambitious, nationwide research program.

Perspectives on the intersection of race and ethnicity, immigration status, and sexual and gender minoritised status among clinical and scientific workforces in Latin America

Latin America is a highly diverse region comprised of populations with multiple intersecting identities. In this paper, we explore how race and ethnicity, immigration status, and sexual and gender minoritised status combine to affect entry into and advancement within clinical and scientific workforces in Latin America. Drawing upon intersectionality theory and existing evidence, we explain how individuals with multiple marginalised identities are particularly disadvantaged in accessing high-level positions and face barriers such as discrimination, poverty, and statistical omission. We also discuss that increasing diversity in the clinical and scientific workforces will likely benefit from system-level changes addressing educational and workplace inequality, creating mentorship opportunities, designing educational campaigns to reduce stigma and discrimination, and improving survey measures to better understand the diversity of populations. Prioritising diversity and inclusion in the clinical and scientific workforces can improve research and healthcare delivery, ultimately reducing existing economic and health inequities in the region.

A Scoping Review of Interventions to Promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the United States Healthcare Workforce

Background

Diversifying the healthcare workforce is critical to achieving a healthier, more equitable society.

Objectives

The objective of this literature review was to examine and synthesize the literature on interventions to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in people who are currently enrolled in the workforce or in a terminal degree/training program and who are located in the following institution types: medical centers; healthcare organizations; and schools of dentistry, medicine, nursing, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and public health.

Methods

A literature search was performed on November 2, 2023 in Ovid MEDLINE®. We reviewed titles and abstracts of all retrieved articles from 2000 forward and the full text of articles included in the final review. We included English-language articles published in peer-reviewed journals that detailed 1 or more interventions to promote DEI in the United States and United States territories. All data included in the final review was extracted by a single investigator and charted using an Excel spreadsheet.

Results

The authors identified 55 articles for inclusion, 4 of which aggregated and analyzed data from many interventions. The remainder detailed 52 interventions across 25 states and Puerto Rico. Most articles did not include a comparison group (38, 69%). The types of interventions identified were: institutional change (14, 27%), mentorship (13, 25%), development programs (13, 25%), pathway programs (5, 10%), financial support (2, 4%), and workshops (2, 4%). Three (6%) interventions could not be categorized. Most studies detailed interventions in medicine (28, 54%) and nursing (11, 21%), focused on racial and ethnic (42, 81%) and/or sex (12, 23%) diversity, and targeted students (33, 64%) and/or faculty/staff (28, 54%).

Conclusion

Many different types of interventions have been trialed to promote workforce DEI in the United States healthcare workforce. These efforts must continue to achieve a diverse and equitable healthcare workforce.

BUILDing SCHOLARS: A program exemplar at a Hispanic serving institution to develop biomedical researchers

The student development initiatives of the BUILDing SCHOLARS Center at The University of Texas at El Paso comprise a program intended to prepare undergraduate students to enter and succeed in advanced graduate and professional biomedical degree programs, ultimately contributing to the diversity of the biomedical research workforce. The program adopted the Johnson/Bozemann Asset Bundles model, which recommends addressing five areas necessary to support minority students as they prepare for and continue towards scientific careers: a) educational endowments, b) science socialization, c) network development, d) family expectations and e) material resources. Through a variety of activities, which included a minimum of two years of research training, all five asset bundles were integrated into the program. Validated scales on science identity and research self-efficacy were completed by program fellows, and academic metrics such as retention, grade point average (GPA), and time to degree were collected for both program fellows and a comparison group. Thorough records of all students who participated in the program, including their presentations and co-authored publications, have been maintained, and students are being tracked post-graduation to determine their entry and completion of advanced degrees. Academic-based results for the first three cohorts of program participants show large, significant, and positive differences in retention, 4-year graduation rates and entry into advanced degrees between program participants and the comparison group. Comparison of academic and non-academic metrics indicate that the asset bundles approach is effective in retaining and preparing students for advanced degrees and careers in STEM disciplines. Using our results in combination with research by others on retention of students in STEM, we suggest factors contributing to the push-out of very talented majority Hispanic students in the comparison group from completing STEM degrees or not pursuing advanced studies in STEM areas.

PROPEL: a scalable model for postbaccalaureate training to promote diversity in the biomedical workforce

Promoting diversity in the scientific workforce is crucial for harnessing the potential of available talent and ensuring equitable access to Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEM-M) careers. We have developed an innovative program called Postbaccalaureate Research Opportunity to Promote Equity in Learning (PROPEL) that provides scientific and career development training for postbaccalaureate scholars from historically excluded backgrounds in STEM-M fields with an interest in pursuing a PhD or MD/PhD degree. Our program is distinct from other postbaccalaureate programs in that scholars are hired by individual labs rather than funded centrally by the program. This funding mechanism removes the idea that central funding is necessary to encourage faculty to train diverse scholars and allows the program to scale dynamically according to the needs of the scientific community. The PROPEL program started in 2020 with six scholars and has since grown to an enrollment of over 100, making it the largest postbaccalaureate program for biomedical research in the country. Here, we describe the program structure and curriculum, our strategy for recruitment, the enrollment trends, the program demographics, metrics of scholar engagement, and outcomes for scholars who completed the program in 2023. Our experience demonstrates the strong demand from both scholars and faculty for programming of this type and describes the feasibility of implementation.

Accelerating the pace of innovation in robotics by fostering diversity and inclusive leadership

Diverse and inclusive teams are not merely a moral imperative but also a catalyst for scientific excellence in robotics. Drawing from literature, a comprehensive citation analysis, and expert interviews, we derive seven main benefits of diversity and inclusion and propose a leadership guide for roboticists to reap these benefits.

Instant prediction of scientific paper cited potential based on semantic and metadata features: Taking artificial intelligence field as an example

With the continuous increase in the number of academic researchers, the volume of scientific papers is also increasing rapidly. The challenge of identifying papers with greater potential academic impact from this large pool has received increasing attention. The citation frequency of a paper is often used as an objective indicator to gauge the academic influence of the paper. The task of citation frequency prediction based on historical citation data in previous studies can achieve high accuracy. However, it can only be executed after the paper has been published for a period. The delay is not conducive to timely discovery of papers with high citation frequency. In this paper, we propose a novel method for predicting cited potential of a paper based on the metadata and semantic information, which can predict the cited potential of academic paper instantly once it has been published. Specifically, the semantic information, such as abstract, semantic span and semantic inflection, is extracted to enhance the ability of the prediction model based on machine learning. To prove the effectiveness and rationality of cited potential prediction model, we conduct two experiments to validate the model and find the most effective combination of input information. The empirical experiments show that the prediction accuracy of our proposed model can reach 88% for the instant prediction of citation.

Creating diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility statements for your CV: a resource guide to effectiveness and comprehensiveness

Diversity in academic medicine and research enhances the quality of the science produced and the efficacy of patient care. Diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) statements have recently been suggested or required by academic job postings as a way to measure candidate's commitments to fostering DEIA in their role. In this perspective, we discuss steps to craft effective DEIA statements that convey your actions in, and commitment to, DEIA. We recognize that mandating DEIA statements may actually result in inauthentic or disingenuous statements and offer solutions to encouraging academics to arrive at a meaningful statement that represents their own perspectives on diversity. Last, we provide examples of DEIA statements from three academics at different career points.

Persistent ethnic disparities in authorship within top European and North American medical journals: a serial cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

We examined the ethnic origin of authors who published research articles in leading medical journals over the past 2 decades.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We carried out a serial cross-sectional analysis of first and last authors who published original research articles in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, and New England Journal of Medicine in 2002, 2012, and 2022. The main outcome was the change in proportion of authors over time according to ethnic origin (Anglo, North/West European, South/West European, Asian, Arab and Middle Eastern, African), gender (male, female), and institutional affiliation in percentage points.

RESULTS

Most authors were of Anglo descent (44%), although the proportion of non-European authors grew between 2002 and 2022. East Asian, South Asian, and Arab and Middle Eastern last authors accounted for a greater proportion of authors over time, gaining between 3 and 6 percentage points, while African authors made no gains. Gains were gender-specific, with non-European men gaining 8 points as first and last authors, but non-European women gaining 5 points as last authors only. Most non-European authors were affiliated with North American (42.9%) or European (22.4%) institutions, while non-European authors from other institutions did not make meaningful gains over time.

CONCLUSION

Ethnic diversity of authors in leading medical journals has increased somewhat over time, but non-European men account for most of the gains. Non-European women have yet to make comparable advancement as authors.

Perspectives on inclusion, safety, and belonging from members of the North American LGBTQIA+ conservation community

Conservation scientists work in diverse settings, sometimes requiring them to exist in spaces where they do not feel safe, included, or accepted. This is often the case for the LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, and others) community, which is frequently marginalized in conservation spaces. We conducted an anonymous, semistructured, online survey of members and nonmembers of the LGBTQIA+ community of conservation students and professionals in North America to explore participants' lived experiences in conservation. Our 737 responses (response rate 26.8%) included 10% who identified as genderqueer, gender nonconforming, questioning, nonspecific, genderfluid, transgender woman, agender, transgender man, 2-spirit Indigenous, or intersex (gender expansive), and 29% as bisexual, queer, lesbian, gay, asexual, pansexual, omnisexual, questioning, or nonheterosexual (queer+). We found that non-LGBTQIA+ respondents overestimated the degree to which LGBTQIA+ respondents felt included in the field of conservation by 5% (sexual orientation) and 18% (gender identity). Respondents' feelings of safety and belonging were up to 50% lower in most work settings compared with non-LGBTQIA respondents; the lowest frequencies were reported by gender expansive respondents (40.9-64.4%). Contextual responses indicated that the lack of safety and belonging related to direct experiences of bullying (23 long-form descriptions out of 73 gender expansive respondents and 15 of 217 queer+ respondents), concerns around safety in rural settings (4 of 73 gender expansive respondents and 20 of 217 queer+ respondents), and concerns around not being able to express their authentic selves (7 of 73 gender expansive respondents and 5 of 217 queer+ respondents). The intersection between gender identity and race also played a role in feelings of safety, belonging, and disclosure of sexual orientation (1 of 73 gender expansive respondents, 6 of 217 queer+ respondents). The most frequent support resources used by LGBTQIA+ conservation scientists included one-on-one support from peers, mentors and external collaborators, support group, and wellness and counseling services outside of work.

China and the U.S. produce more impactful AI research when collaborating together

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a disruptive technology, promising to grant a significant economic and strategic advantage to nations that harness its power. China, with its recent push towards AI adoption, is challenging the U.S.'s position as the global leader in this field. Given AI's massive potential, as well as the fierce geopolitical tensions between China and the U.S., several recent policies have been put in place to discourage AI scientists from migrating to, or collaborating with, the other nation. Nevertheless, the extent of talent migration and cross-border collaboration are not fully understood. Here, we analyze a dataset of over 350,000 AI scientists and 5,000,000 AI papers. We find that since 2000, China and the U.S. have led the field in terms of impact, novelty, productivity, and workforce. Most AI scientists who move to China come from the U.S., and most who move to the U.S. come from China, highlighting a notable bidirectional talent migration. Moreover, the vast majority of those moving in either direction have Asian ancestry. Upon moving, those scientists continue to collaborate frequently with those in the origin country. Although the number of collaborations between the two countries has increased since the dawn of the millennium, such collaborations continue to be relatively rare. A matching experiment reveals that the two countries have always been more impactful when collaborating than when each works without the other. These findings suggest that instead of suppressing cross-border migration and collaboration between the two nations, the science could benefit from promoting such activities.

'I don't believe in the neutrality of research. OK?' Mapping researchers' attitudes toward values in science

Background: Codes of conduct for research integrity provide ambivalent guidance on the role that the values of society as well as political and economic interests can or should play in scientific research. The development of clearer guidance on this matter in the future should consider the attitudes of researchers.Methods: We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with holders of grants from the European Research Council and performed an inductive thematic analysis thereof.Results: We developed 4 themes reflecting 4 main attitudes of researchers toward the interactions between values and science: awareness, concern, confidence, and embracement. While interviewees recognized that science is not completely value-free (awareness), they still seemed to hold on to the so-called value-free ideal of science as a professional norm to minimize bias (concern, confidence). However, they showed awareness of the beneficial influence that values like diversity can have on research (embracement).Conclusions: Codes such as the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity tend not to problematize the tensions that emerge from having the value-free ideal of science as a norm and being guided by the values of society. Our findings suggest the time might be ripe for research integrity codes to address more directly the value issues intrinsic to science.

Racism, not race: Quantitative analysis of the use of race and racism in the addiction literature

RATIONALE

Prior research has demonstrated that medical journals rarely mention racism, potentially contributing to an incorrect understanding of and inappropriate interventions for health inequities affecting Black and Brown communities in the US. While this infrequency of mentions of racism has been documented in the general medical literature, it is unknown if this pattern extends to the addiction literature, where some have argued that structural racism has played a specific role in shaping policy and treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess how frequently the addiction literature for the last 30 years has mentioned race and racism and if these rates vary with social movements.

METHODS

We created an algorithm to download and process over 30,000 published articles published from 1990 to 2022 in five major addiction journals: Addiction, Addictive Behaviors, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Journal of Substance Abuse and Treatment, and International Journal of Drug Policy. Using this data, we reported temporal patterns of mentioning both race and racism across journals and article types. Further, we utilized interrupted time series analysis to identify if the social movements against police violence and the murder of George Floyd in 2020 were associated with significant changes in rates of mentioning racism.

RESULTS

While over 30% of the articles in addiction medicine journals included the word race, only 1.5% of articles mentioned racism. Based on an interrupted time series model, after the racial reckoning following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, mentions of racism increased in the addiction literature (OR = 3.21, 95% CI: [2.39, 4.32], P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A large chasm remains between how often authors mention race versus racism in addiction medicine, a field with a unique history intertwined with structural racism. Addressing inequities in addiction outcomes, including burgeoning inequities in overdose deaths, will require acknowledging racism in the scientific literature.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in a polarized world: Navigating challenges and opportunities in STEMM

As anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) legislation continues to gain traction, it is essential for those in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) to grasp its implications and explore ways to preserve inclusive environments. Anti-DEI measures can result in the dismantling of support structures, such as DEI centers and peer counseling groups, leading to a decline in vital support programs on college campuses and beyond. In this Voices article, we examine these emerging challenges and underscore the critical need to reframe DEI as a tool for fostering inclusion and benefits all individuals.

A trainee-informed model for undergraduate neuroscience research programs serving marginalized students

Undergraduate research programs improve career outcomes for historically marginalized students in the US, but low retention rates in postgraduate research persist. As graduate students and postdocs, we present a combination of trainee-informed approaches for tailoring summer research programs to these students’ needs and share key materials to facilitate adoption of these approaches at other institutions.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Position Statement

1:  The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) adheres to the overarching principles of equality of opportunity, fair treatment, nondiscrimination, and diversity of health care professionals. 2:  ESGE strongly supports the creation of collaborations within and between national and international endoscopy societies to disseminate the principles of diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. 3:  ESGE aims to reflect the diversity of its membership in all its scientific and educational activities. 4:  ESGE supports the fostering of collaborative work settings that empower all members of the endoscopy team to reach their full potential. 5:  ESGE supports international and national endoscopy societies in promoting equitable access to high quality endoscopy training. 6:  ESGE recommends the implementation of ergonomic principles in endoscopy units to prevent injuries and to provide adapted workplace conditions for personnel with disabilities and/or special needs. 7:  ESGE recommends comprehensive mentorship, that includes diverse backgrounds, and equitable sponsorship for professional development, training, and academic excellence. 8:  ESGE recommends that endoscopists actively identify, discuss, and attempt to accommodate reasonable patient preferences and expectations regarding endoscopy procedures. 9:  ESGE advocates for educational and awareness campaigns targeting both health care professionals and patients, as well as the adoption of cost-effective health care strategies to address disparities and enhance equity in endoscopy care. 10:  ESGE is committed to increasing support for underrepresented scholars and minorities pursuing research in endoscopy. 11:  ESGE identifies mentorship and sponsorship as factors that may mitigate the barriers to academic careers for underrepresented endoscopy scholars. 12:  ESGE recognizes the need to increase awareness of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of endoscopy and supports publications on these topics.

Toward Culturally Responsive Mentoring of Muslim Research Mentees in the Sciences

Research experiences are an integral part of training future scientists and fostering diversity in science. Providing culturally responsive research mentorship, defined as mentorship that incorporates cultural knowledge to improve learning experiences for a particular group, is a critical step in this endeavor. While culturally responsive mentoring is most commonly associated with mentoring students with underrepresented races and ethnicities in the sciences, it can also be helpful for mentees with a diversity of abilities, sexualities, economic backgrounds, and religions. In this essay, we discuss how mentors can provide more culturally responsive mentoring of Muslim research mentees in the sciences. Muslims are a stigmatized minority group in the United States who participate in a religious culture that often differs from the secular culture of science. Notably, there are few resources for how to engage in culturally responsive mentoring of Muslim research mentees. To address this gap, we drew from the extant literature on the challenges that Muslims encounter in the United States, which likely extends to the context of scientific research, and identified potential culturally responsive accommodations in research.

Racial and Ethnic Patient Care Disparities in Anesthesiology: History, Current State, and a Way Forward

Disparities in patient care and outcomes are well-documented in medicine but have received comparatively less attention in anesthesiology. Those disparities linked to racial and ethnic identity are pervasive, with compelling evidence in operative anesthesiology, obstetric anesthesiology, pain medicine, and critical care. This narrative review presents an overview of disparities in perioperative patient care that is grounded in historical context followed by potential solutions for mitigating disparities and inequities.

Executing plans to enhance diversity across cancer centers in the United States: opportunities and challenges

BACKGROUND

Lack of diversity in the cancer research workforce persists, which the new requirement for all National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers to have a Plan to Enhance Diversity (PED) seeks to address. However, it is not well understood how different cancer centers are approaching the development and execution of these plans. Our objective was to assess how cancer centers are establishing and pursuing their PED.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of members of the Cancer Center Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Network, which includes all NCI-designated cancer centers and several emerging centers. A total of 62 cancer centers (75% of those invited), including 58 NCI-designated cancer centers (81% of those with this designation), participated and completed a questionnaire that assessed PED leadership, major challenges, implementation strategies, and approach to evaluate PED progress.

RESULTS

The most common PED challenge identified is recruiting diverse faculty (68% of centers), and the most common strategy currently used to address this is reviewing and revising faculty recruitment practices (67%). The most common approach centers are using to measure PED progress is shifts in demographics (68%), and data on the demographics of faculty, leadership, and trainees are available at 79%, 81%, and 75% of centers, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost all centers have established a PED leadership structure, however, there is considerable variation in the approaches used to realize PED goals and in the resources provided to support PED work. Realizing opportunities to share and implement common best practices and exemplar programs has the potential to elevate the impact of PED efforts nationally.

Dissecting Diversity: A Comprehensive Look at the Present Landscape and Future Challenges in Surgical Specialties

BACKGROUND

As the US demographic evolves, surgical fields must adapt to ensure equitable healthcare. Healthcare disparities notably affect minority populations, with communities of color often facing physician shortages and higher rates of diseases such as coronary disease, stroke, and cancer. Research shows that minority physicians significantly improve patient satisfaction and outcomes in underserved communities, highlighting the need for increased physician diversity to enhance cultural competency and patient centered care. Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) reveals minimal increases in underrepresented minorities (URM) in surgical residency and academic careers over the past thirty-six years, with little change URM applicants and matriculants in the nine surgical specialties recognized by the American College of Surgeons from 2010 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to critically evaluate the current landscape of racial and gender diversity in six out of the nine defined surgical specialties (general surgery, plastic surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, cardiothoracic surgery, and vascular surgery) in the US.

DESIGN

We conducted a comprehensive literature review to assess of the state of diversity within surgical specialties in the United States. By analyzing the benefits of diversity in surgical fields, evaluating the effectiveness of various diversity programs and initiatives, examining the comparative diversity between surgical subspecialties, and assessing the impact of diversity on patient outcomes, our aim is to highlight the critical importance of enhancing diversity in surgical fields.

RESULTS

While nuances in representation and diversity vary across surgical specialties, all fields persistently exhibit underrepresentation of certain racial/ethnic groups and persistent gender disparities. These disparities manifest throughout various phases, including in residency, and in the recruitment and retention of URM individuals in surgery and surgical subspecialties. While interventions over the past decade have contributed to improving diversity in surgical fields, significant disparities persist. Limitations include the time required for recent interventions to show significant impacts and the inability of established interventions to eliminate disparities.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the clear benefits, diversity within surgical specialties remains an uphill battle. Addressing the diversity gap in surgical fields is crucial for improving patient outcomes, healthcare access, and workplace environments, requiring strategies such as targeted recruitment, mentorship programs, and addressing systemic biases. This review highlights the undeniable imperative for change and serve a call to action.

Internet-enabled lab-on-a-chip technology for education

Despite many interventions, science education remains highly inequitable throughout the world. Internet-enabled experimental learning has the potential to reach underserved communities and increase the diversity of the scientific workforce. Here, we demonstrate the use of lab-on-a-chip (LoC) technologies to expose Latinx life science undergraduate students to introductory concepts of computer programming by taking advantage of open-loop cloud-integrated LoCs. We developed a context-aware curriculum to train students at over 8000 km from the experimental site. Through this curriculum, the students completed an assignment testing bacteria contamination in water using LoCs. We showed that this approach was sufficient to reduce the students' fear of programming and increase their interest in continuing careers with a computer science component. Altogether, we conclude that LoC-based internet-enabled learning can become a powerful tool to train Latinx students and increase the diversity in STEM.

Overcoming the Barriers to Teaching Teamwork to Undergraduates in STEM

There is widespread recognition that undergraduate students in the life sciences must learn how to work in teams. However, instructors who wish to incorporate teamwork into their classrooms rarely have formal training in how to teach teamwork. This is further complicated by the application of synonymous and often ambiguous terminology regarding teamwork that is found in literature spread among many different disciplines. There are significant barriers for instructors wishing to identify and implement best practices. We synthesize key concepts in teamwork by considering the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) necessary for success, the pedagogies and curricula for teaching those KSAs, and the instruments available for evaluating and assessing success. There are only a limited number of studies on teamwork in higher education that present an intervention with a control group and a formal evaluation or assessment. Moreover, these studies are almost exclusively outside STEM disciplines, raising questions about their extensibility. We conclude by considering how to build an evidence base for instruction that will empower students with the KSAs necessary for participating in a lifetime of equitable and inclusive teamwork.

Promoting equality, diversity and inclusion in research and funding: reflections from a digital manufacturing research network

BACKGROUND

Equal, diverse, and inclusive teams lead to higher productivity, creativity, and greater problem-solving ability resulting in more impactful research. However, there is a gap between equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) research and practices to create an inclusive research culture. Research networks are vital to the research ecosystem, creating valuable opportunities for researchers to develop their partnerships with both academics and industrialists, progress their careers, and enable new areas of scientific discovery. A feature of a network is the provision of funding to support feasibility studies - an opportunity to develop new concepts or ideas, as well as to 'fail fast' in a supportive environment. The work of networks can address inequalities through equitable allocation of funding and proactive consideration of inclusion in all of their activities.

METHODS

This study proposes a strategy to embed EDI within research network activities and funding review processes. This paper evaluates 21 planned mitigations introduced to address known inequalities within research events and how funding is awarded. EDI data were collected from researchers engaging in a digital manufacturing network activities and funding calls to measure the impact of the proposed method.

RESULTS

Quantitative analysis indicates that the network's approach was successful in creating a more ethnically diverse network, engaging with early career researchers, and supporting researchers with care responsibilities. However, more work is required to create a gender balance across the network activities and ensure the representation of academics who declare a disability. Preliminary findings suggest the network's anonymous funding review process has helped address inequalities in funding award rates for women and those with care responsibilities, more data are required to validate these observations and understand the impact of different interventions individually and in combination.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, this study offers compelling evidence regarding the efficacy of a research network's approach in advancing EDI within research and funding. The network hopes that these findings will inform broader efforts to promote EDI in research and funding and that researchers, funders, and other stakeholders will be encouraged to adopt evidence-based strategies for advancing this important goal.

Diversity Is Diverse: Social Justice Reparations and Science

Because the term "diversity" has two related but different meanings, what authors mean when they use the term is inherently unclear. In its broad form, it refers to vast variety. In its narrow form, it refers to human demographic categories deemed deserving of special attention by social justice-oriented activists. In this article, I review Hommel's critique of Roberts et al. (2020), which, I suggest, essentially constitutes two claims: that Roberts et al.'s (2020) call for diversity in psychological science focuses exclusively on the latter narrow form of diversity and ignores the scientific importance of diversity in the broader sense, and ignoring diversity in the broader sense is scientifically unjustified. Although Hommel's critique is mostly justified, this is not because Roberts et al. (2020) are wrong to call for greater social justice-oriented demographic diversity in psychology but because Hommel's call for the broader form of diversity subsumes that of Roberts et al. (2020) and has other aspects critical to creating a valid, generalizable, rigorous, and inclusive psychological science. In doing so, I also highlight omissions, limitations, and potential downsides to the narrow manner in which psychology and the broader academy are currently implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Research and mentorship in behavior analysis from a lens of cultural responsiveness and antiracism

Although scientific endeavors strive to be objective, they are the work of individuals whose unique perspectives and experiences influence their research and interpretations of the world and data. Much has been said and written lately about the need to embed cultural responsiveness in behavior analysis and the need to enhance diversity in the field. In fact, similar conversations are taking place in many areas of science. Despite the current buzz, many behavioral researchers may be left wondering what they can do or whether it is incumbent on them to act. For the field of behavior analysis to move toward adopting the values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and access, members of the scientific community must actively engage in behaviors that foster inclusive and safe learning environments for students, engage in collaborative work, and incorporate culturally responsive research and mentorship practices. This article will describe some current practices, showcase exemplars of culturally responsive research and mentorship, and provide resources for researchers and mentors.

Staying Virtual: A Survey Study of the Virtual Lecture Experience in Academic Medicine

BACKGROUND

Increasing clinical demands can adversely impact academic advancement, including the ability to deliver lectures and disseminate scholarly work. The virtual lecture platform became mainstream during the height of the coronavirus-19 pandemic. Lessons learned from this period may offer insight into supporting academic productivity among physicians who must balance multiple demands, including high clinical workloads and family care responsibilities. We evaluated perceptions on delivering virtual lectures to determine whether virtual venues merit continuation beyond the pandemic's initial phase and whether these perceptions differ by gender and rank.

METHODS

In a survey study, faculty who spoke in 1 of 3 virtual lecture programs in the Departments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Otolaryngology, and Radiology at a university hospital in 2020 to 2022 were queried about their experience. Speakers' motivations to lecture virtually and the perceived advantages and disadvantages of virtual and in-person lectures were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses.

RESULTS

Seventy-two of 95 (76%) faculty members responded (40% women, 38% men, and 22% gender undisclosed). Virtual lectures supported the speakers "a lot" to "extremely" with the following goals: enhancing one's reputation and credibility (76%), networking (70%), receiving feedback (63%), and advancing prospects for promotion (59%). Virtual programs also increased the speakers' sense of accomplishment (70%) and professional optimism (61%) by at least "a lot," including instructors and assistant professors who previously had difficulty obtaining invitations to speak outside their institution. Many respondents had declined prior invitations to speak in-person due to clinical workload (66%) and family care responsibilities (58%). Previous opportunities to lecture in-person were also refused due to finances (39%), teaching (26%), and research (19%) requirements, personal medical conditions or disabilities (9%), and religious obligations (5%). Promotion was a stronger motivating factor to lecture virtually for instructors and assistant professors than for associate and full professors. By contrast, disseminating work and ideas was a stronger motivator for associate and full professors. Associate and full professors also reported greater improvement in work-related well-being than earlier career faculty from the virtual lecture experience. Very few differences were found by gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual lecture programs support faculty who might not otherwise have the opportunity to lecture in-person due to multiple constraints. To increase the dissemination of scholarly work and expand opportunities to all faculty, virtual lectures should continue even as in-person venues are reestablished.

Demographic representation among speakers at the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) spring conferences

BACKGROUND

The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) is a leading medical society for infection prevention and antibiotic stewardship. This descriptive study evaluated speaker demographics at the annual SHEA Spring conferences from 2019 to 2022.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, descriptive analysis of the demographic composition of speakers at the annual SHEA Spring conferences between 2019 and 2022, excluding the cancelled 2020 conference. Self-reported demographics were available for gender, race, ethnicity, age, primary practice setting, and professional degrees in speaker and membership categories.

RESULTS

In total, 447 speaker slots were filled by 305 unique speakers over 3 years. Average annual membership included 55.2% female, 44.8% male, 69.3% White, 21.4% Asian, 6.0% Hispanic/Latino, 2.9% Black, and 0.4% American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (AIAN/NHPI); 48.9% did not report a race or ethnicity. Speakers during the same period were 63.5% female, 36.5% male, 68.2% White, 13.3% Asian, 3.8% Black, 3.4% Hispanic/Latino, 0.8% AIAN/NHPI; 13.4% did not report race or ethnicity. In 2021, pharmacists represented 11.6% of speakers (and 2.9% of members) and members with nondoctoral degrees represented 11.6% of speakers (and 21.5% of members) (P < .0001). In each year, we detected underrepresentation of community and private-practice speakers relative to membership (eg, in 2022, 4.3% of speakers vs 15.7% of members; P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The SHEA Spring conferences demonstrated an increase in pharmacist speakers over time, but speakers from community hospitals and with nondoctoral degrees remain underrepresented relative to membership. Racial and ethnic minoritized individuals remain underrepresented as members and speakers. Intentional interventions are needed to consistently achieve equitable speaker representation across multiple demographic groups.

The Effects of Group Composition and Dynamics on Collective Performance

As organizations gravitate to group-based structures, the problem of improving performance through judicious selection of group members has preoccupied scientists and managers alike. However, which individual attributes best predict group performance remains poorly understood. Here, we describe a preregistered experiment in which we simultaneously manipulated four widely studied attributes of group compositions: skill level, skill diversity, social perceptiveness, and cognitive style diversity. We find that while the average skill level of group members, skill diversity, and social perceptiveness are significant predictors of group performance, skill level dominates all other factors combined. Additionally, we explore the relationship between patterns of collaborative behavior and performance outcomes and find that any potential gains in solution quality from additional communication between the group members are outweighed by the overhead time cost, leading to lower overall efficiency. However, groups exhibiting more "turn-taking" behavior are considerably faster and thus more efficient. Finally, contrary to our expectation, we find that group compositional factors (i.e., skill level and social perceptiveness) are not associated with the amount of communication between group members nor turn-taking dynamics.

7-day patterns in Black-White segregation in 49 metropolitan areas

While residential segregation is a persistent attribute of metropolitan areas, recent studies find segregation levels fluctuate throughout the day, reaching their lowest levels during daytime hours. This paper shows hourly variations in Black-White segregation from Monday through Sunday for the top 49 most populated metropolitan areas with Global Positioning System (GPS) data collected from mobile phones from October 2018. I find that segregation levels are higher on average over weekends compared to that of weekdays. I use models to identify the characteristics of neighborhoods with higher levels of segregation on weekends, which include all demographic variables and nearly a third of 35 sectors of businesses and organizations, such as retail, personal care, and religious organizations. I also find more than a third of the sectors are associated with higher levels of segregation during business hours on weekdays, including academic institutions, health care, manufacturing, and financial institutions. Findings from this paper display the significance in the distinction between weekdays and weekends with where people spend their time and how this relates to racial segregation. Specifically, Black people, on average, stay in their home census tracts and visit non-White neighborhoods for organizational resources more so than White people. Significant patterns of associations between racial segregation and the majority of businesses demonstrate the salience of race for more industries than previously understood.

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research

Scientists are enthusiastically imagining ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) tools might improve research. Why are AI tools so attractive and what are the risks of implementing them across the research pipeline? Here we develop a taxonomy of scientists' visions for AI, observing that their appeal comes from promises to improve productivity and objectivity by overcoming human shortcomings. But proposed AI solutions can also exploit our cognitive limitations, making us vulnerable to illusions of understanding in which we believe we understand more about the world than we actually do. Such illusions obscure the scientific community's ability to see the formation of scientific monocultures, in which some types of methods, questions and viewpoints come to dominate alternative approaches, making science less innovative and more vulnerable to errors. The proliferation of AI tools in science risks introducing a phase of scientific enquiry in which we produce more but understand less. By analysing the appeal of these tools, we provide a framework for advancing discussions of responsible knowledge production in the age of AI.

Advances in pediatric acute kidney injury pathobiology: a report from the 26th Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) conference

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, there have been substantial advances in our understanding of the pathobiology of pediatric acute kidney injury (AKI). In particular, animal models and studies focused on the relationship between kidney development, nephron number, and kidney health have identified a number of heterogeneous pathophysiologies underlying AKI. Despite this progress, gaps remain in our understanding of the pathobiology of pediatric AKI.

METHODS

During the 26th Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) Consensus conference, a multidisciplinary group of experts discussed the evidence and used a modified Delphi process to achieve consensus on recommendations for opportunities to advance translational research in pediatric AKI. The current state of research understanding as well as gaps and opportunities for advancement in research was discussed, and recommendations were summarized.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached that to improve translational pediatric AKI advancements, diverse teams spanning pre-clinical to epidemiological scientists must work in concert together and that results must be shared with the community we serve with patient involvement. Public and private research support and meaningful partnerships with adult research efforts are required. Particular focus is warranted to investigate the pediatric nuances of AKI, including the effect of development as a biological variable on AKI incidence, severity, and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although AKI is common and associated with significant morbidity, the biologic basis of the disease spectrum throughout varying nephron developmental stages remains poorly understood. An incomplete understanding of factors contributing to kidney health, the diverse pathobiologies underlying AKI in children, and the historically siloed approach to research limit advances in the field. The recommendations outlined herein identify gaps and outline a strategic approach to advance the field of pediatric AKI via multidisciplinary translational research.

Ending Race-Conscious College Admissions and Its Potential Impact on the Infectious Disease Workforce

On 29 June 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that race-conscious consideration for college admission is unconstitutional. We discuss the consequences of this ruling on the delivery of equitable care and health system readiness to combat current and emerging pandemics. We propose strategies to mitigate the negative impact of this ruling on diversifying the infectious disease (ID) workforce.