Search

A global survey of researchers was conducted to gather perceptions on the prevalence and impact of predatory academic journals and conferences. The survey was open and inclusive in nature, with 1872 researchers, from a wide array of geographic regions, disciplines and academic career stages, voluntarily participating. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed. The survey revealed that over 80% (1537 of 1859) of respondents perceive predatory practices are already a serious problem or on the rise in their country of work, and risk infiltrating and undermining the research enterprise if left unchallenged. At least 24% (445 of 1872) of respondents admitted they had already published in a predatory journal, participated in a predatory conference, or did not know if they had. Over 87% of respondents who had published (174 of 199) or participated (60 of 64) indicated that a lack of awareness of predatory practices was the main reason. Those in lower‐middle and upper‐middle‐income countries were more likely to indicate they had engaged in these activities than those in high‐income ones, with some disciplines appearing to engage more than others. Individual impact was mixed: some indicated no impact while others noted a range of negative and detrimental feelings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2014, Lord Saatchi launched his ultimately unsuccessful Medical Innovation Bill in the UK. Its laudable aim was to free doctors from the shackles that prevented them from providing responsible innovative treatment. Lord Saatchi's principal contention was that current law was the unsurmountable barrier that prevented clinicians from delivering innovative treatments to cancer patients when conventional options had failed. This was because doctors feared that they might be sued or tried and convicted of gross negligence manslaughter if they deviated from standard practice. Concerns about fear of the law and potential negative effects on medical practice are not new. Fear of litigation has been suggested as the reason for doctors practising "defensive medicine," by opting for treatments regarded as "grievance-resistant," rather than clinically indicated, for example, by ordering diagnostic tests or performing certain procedures, which are not strictly medically necessary. Whilst this claim is plausible and apparently accepted by the courts, there is limited empirical evidence in support of it so far as practitioners in the UK are concerned. In this paper, we report on our empirical research which provides a snapshot of medical opinion to begin to rectify this gap. We ran focus groups of different medical specialties, asking what these medical practitioners thought the barriers to medical innovation to be. We found that fear of the law was not the principal barrier to be lowered, and that the answer was far more multifaceted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trends and attitudes surrounding research authorship have fluctuated as requirements for publication and academic advancement have changed. Research, overall, is becoming increasingly collaborative. While sole authorship has been common in the past, co-authored research is comprising an increasingly higher percentage of published articles each year. Seven previous articles in American Music Therapy Association (AMTA)-published journals have focused on publication and/or research trends, but only one of these studies examined authorship trends (affiliation, gender, and credentials). No study was found regarding trends of authorship types (sole vs. co-authored). Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the collaborative authorship trends in AMTA-published music therapy journals over the last 30 years (1988–2017). Specifically, the authors sought to determine trends in number of total articles published and the number of authors per article (sole vs. multiple) over time. Analysis of the 1,164 articles published during this period indicated a statistically significant increase in the total number of music therapy articles published and in the number of authors per article. Co-authorship also significantly increased, while sole authorship significantly decreased. Collaboration, despite logistical difficulties, may be beneficial and worth the effort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores some of the main legal implications of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) scanning and treatment, particularly in relation to the interpretation of AAA scans, the provision of patients with adequate information about their options and the risks involved, and issues in relation to monitoring, re-scanning and re-calling the patient for further assessment and treatment. It is suggested that the introduction of national AAA scanning programme is likely to lead to an increase in litigation claims in this field, and that, given the complex nature of the risk-benefit assessment in relation to AAA treatment, particular care needs to be taken to ensure that patients are properly informed about their condition and its treatment, if Chester v Afshar-type claims are to be avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]