Ethics, industry, and outcomes

Scientific production of Brazilian speech language pathologists in sleep medicine

Introduction:

Previous diagnosis and intervention in patients with sleep-disordered breathing involves several health professionals. Speech-Language and Hearing Sciences (SLHS) performance has been solidified through scientific production.

Objective:

To describe the inclusion of Brazilian Speech-Language Pathologists (SLP) in the field of sleep disorders, through the description of studies, scientific publications and participation in scientific events.

Data Synthesis:

A search and an analysis of the Brazilian SLP publications in the field of sleep disorders were carried out, including articles, monographs, dissertations, thesis and abstracts published in annals of events. The databases Lilacs, SciELO, Pubmed, Google Scholar tool and Lattes platform were accessed, with final search in January 2018. The analysis consisted of a description of the year of publication, type of publication, area of the SLHS, place of publication and/or event. 40 articles were found in national and international journals, from 1999 to 2017. In relation to publications in books, one book about the subject was published in 2009 and eight chapters of books were published. In the monograph format, 21 studies were carried out, there are 13 dissertations and eight thesis. A total of 151 abstracts were published in annals of scientific events, from 2001 to 2017 and 63 lectures were conducted by SLP.

Conclusion:

The inclusion of Brazilian SLP in the area of sleep disorders has been supported by scientific publications in the format of articles in national and international journals, monographs, thesis, dissertations, books and publications in event annals.

Factors that Affect Integrity of Authorship of Scientific Meeting Abstracts

BACKGROUND

Strict criteria for manuscript authorship exist to guide decisions on who should be considered an author. Less is known about how authorship for scientific meetings is determined. Our goal was to explore factors that influence decisions about authorship of conference abstracts.

METHODS

In 2010, we conducted qualitative focus groups with a stratified sample of 36 trainees, 19 junior faculty, and 11 senior faculty. Focus group transcripts were coded using a coding scheme derived from an initial review of the transcripts and a preliminary theoretical framework, which was based on the literature, anecdotes, and personal experience.

RESULTS

We identified 6 themes related to abstract authorship: comparisons with manuscripts; collaboration dynamics; time; experience and professional development; standards for authorship; and funding. We found that: views of abstracts as a lesser form of publication lead to diminished integrity of authorship; trainee inexperience and the dynamics of collaboration adversely influence the integrity of authorship independently of the perceived difference between an abstract and an article; and early communication about authorship appears to increase the integrity of authorship decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors do not hold abstracts to the same standard as manuscripts. As such, authorship decisions are frequently inconsistent with authorship criteria pertaining to manuscripts. Such inconsistencies might be improved with stricter institutional rules, clear and consistent authorship guidelines for abstracts submitted to conferences, a requirement that all authors verify their contributions to the abstract, and additional training in the responsible conduct of research.