Search

There is a well-documented gap between the observed number of works produced by women and by men in science, with clear consequences for the retention and promotion of women 1 . The gap might be a result of productivity differences 2-5 , or it might be owing to women's contributions not being acknowledged 6,7 . Here we find that at least part of this gap is the result of unacknowledged contributions: women in research teams are significantly less likely than men to be credited with authorship. The findings are consistent across three very different sources of data. Analysis of the first source-large-scale administrative data on research teams, team scientific output and attribution of credit-show that women are significantly less likely to be named on a given article or patent produced by their team relative to their male peers. The gender gap in attribution is present across most scientific fields and almost all career stages. The second source-an extensive survey of authors-similarly shows that women's scientific contributions are systematically less likely to be recognized. The third source-qualitative responses-suggests that the reason that women are less likely to be credited is because their work is often not known, is not appreciated or is ignored. At least some of the observed gender gap in scientific output may be owing not to differences in scientific contribution, but rather to differences in attribution., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

There is a need to foster future generations of radiation oncology physician scientists, but the number of radiation oncologists with sufficient education, training, and funding to make transformative discoveries is relatively small. A large number of MD/PhD graduates have entered he field of radiation oncology over the past 2 decades, but this has not led to a significant cohort of externally funded physician scientists. Because radiation oncologists leading independent research labs have the potential to make transformative discoveries that advance our field and positively affect patients with cancer, we created the Duke Radiation Oncology Research Scholar (RORS) Program. In crafting this program, we sought to eliminate barriers preventing radiation oncology trainees from becoming independent physician scientists. The RORS program integrates the existing American Board of Radiology Holman Pathway with a 2-year post-graduate medical education instructor position with 80% research effort at the same institution. We use a separate match for RORS and traditional residency pathways, which we hope will increase the diversity of our residency program. Since the inception of the RORS program, we have matched 2 trainees into our program. We encourage other radiation oncology residency programs at peer institutions to consider this training pathway as a means to foster the development of independent physician scientists and a diverse workforce in radiation oncology., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Support of the U.S. health professions investigator workforce is critically important to the continued advancement of health care nationally. Physician-investigators comprise one segment of this health professions investigator workforce, which also includes investigators in the nursing, pharmacy, and dentistry professions, and others. Among physician health professionals in particular, the term "physician-investigator" has been described as encompassing physicians engaged in research in various ways including "clinical researchers" (physicians with clinical duties who do clinical, patient-centered research), "clinician-scientists" (physicians with clinical roles who perform research in laboratories or using computational tools), and "physician-scientists" (physicians focused on research with little or no clinical activity). Broadly defined, physician-investigators are included in various groups of researchers described in several articles recently published in Academic Medicine; these articles provide details on a range of approaches, with supporting outcomes data, being taken to train, support, and retain physicians in the health professions investigator workforce. The authors of this commentary examine selected literature, including several articles in this issue among others, along with Association of American Medical Colleges data, to offer observations about programs that train physician-investigators. Evidence-informed single-program approaches for early-career researchers can sustain continued research interest and foster the career development of the emerging physician-investigator workforce. Collaborative multi-institutional approaches offer the benefit of multisite work to power outcomes studies and to increase generalizability beyond a specific institutional program. System-wide institutional approaches may be particularly critical in supporting physician-investigators across all career stages. Although the articles discussed in this commentary are largely (although not exclusively) focused on various initiatives and programs designed to develop and sustain the physician-investigator workforce, such initiatives and programs may have value in addressing shared challenges of developing, supporting, and retaining the broader investigator workforce across all health professions., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Background: Research is needed to improve understanding of work-life integration issues in academic medicine and to guide the implementation of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national initiative offering financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. Materials and Methods: In 2018, as part of a prospective program evaluation, the authors conducted a qualitative study to examine FRCS program participants' initial impressions, solicit descriptions of their career and caregiving experiences, and inquire how such factors might influence their professional advancement. The authors invited all 33 awardees who had been granted FRCS funding in the first year of the program to participate in the study, of whom 28 agreed to complete an interview. Analysts evaluated de-identified transcripts and explicated the data using a thematic analysis approach. Results: While participants described aspects of a culture that harbor stigma against caregivers and impede satisfactory work-life integration, they also perceived an optimistic cultural shift taking place as a result of programs like the FRCS. Their comments indicated that the FRCS has the potential to influence culture if institutional leadership simultaneously fosters a community that validates individuals both as caregivers and as scientists. Conclusions: Insights garnered from this qualitative study suggest that there is a pressing need for institutional leaders to implement programs that can foster awareness and normalization of caregiving challenges. In addition to providing funding and other tangible resources, interventions should strive to reinforce a broader culture that affirms the presence of work-life integration challenges and openly embraces solutions.

Producing excellent physician scientists starts with the active discovery of talent and dedication, supported by the strong belief that physician involvement in biomedical research is essential to make fundamental discoveries that improve human health. The revolution of surgical and interventional therapy of structural heart disease has had 'profoundly positive effects on survival and quality of life over the decades. (…) Small increments in clinical improvement will still be possible in the future, but for the most part, the potential for major advancement using these techniques has been exhausted' (Frank Hanley, MD; Stanford). Personalized medicine, rapid genetic diagnostics, RNA and extracellular vesicle biology, epigenetics, gene editing, gene and stem cell-derived therapy are exemplary areas where specialized training for paediatric/congenital cardiology physician scientists will be increasingly needed to further advance the field. About a decade ago, a series in Circulation discussed academic career models and highlighted the major challenges facing the cardiovascular 'clinician scientist' (syn. physician scientist), which have not abated since. To develop the skills and expertise in both clinical congenital cardiology and basic research, the training of fellows must be focused and integrated. The current pandemic COVID-19 puts additional pressure and hurdles on fellows-in-training (FIT) and early career investigators (ECI) who aim to establish, consolidate or expand their own research group. Here, we discuss the major challenges, opportunities and necessary changes for academic institutions to sustain and recruit physician scientists in paediatric/congenital cardiology in the years to come., (© 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Clinical Investigation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation.)

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate challenges associated with postgraduate research supervision in nursing education and possible implications for improvement efforts., Background: Postgraduate research-based programs in nursing education are particularly new compared to other professions. Anecdotal notes from nursing education stakeholders indicate that postgraduate research supervision encounters numerous challenges, with negative consequences for the nursing profession and for society., Method: Integrative review that combines empirical and theoretical evidence was used to obtain a comprehensive picture of challenges in the supervision of postgraduate research., Data Sources: EBSCOhost; Science Direct; Google Scholar., Review Methods: The quality of included studies was appraised using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool for quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. Two reviewers extracted data and did quality appraisal., Analysis: Inductive content analysis was used to analyse extracted data from included studies., Results: Seven studies were included. Three main categories of challenges associated with (a) institutional context, (b) research supervisors, and (c) postgraduate students., Discussion: Institutional context challenges were lack of clear guidelines for nursing schools, limited pool of appropriate research supervisors, and recruitment of many postgraduate students leading to mismatch, confusion and limited support. Research supervisors are insufficiently prepared, predominantly use traditional face-to-face method, and provide inconsistent feedback. Postgraduate students are inadequately prepared and are mostly full-time employed., Conclusion: Many challenges continue to beset postgraduate research supervision in nursing discipline, with negative consequences for the quality of graduates and the quality of their research output., The Implication for Nursing Policy: To generate useful knowledge and increase the number of motivated nursing scholars, challenges associated with postgraduate research supervision need to be addressed, with emphasis on formal training for research supervisors and development of clear guidelines for postgraduate research supervision and for recruitment of postgraduate students., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest There is no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)