Un an après la crise des pénuries de médicaments Sandoz : peu d’avancées
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It was with interest that I read the paper by Hung and Duffett 1 reporting publication rates for pharmacy residents' research projects.Although I was pleased to find that the authors had cited my own paper 2 reporting a similar project concerning the disposition of research projects by medical residents at the University of British Columbia, I was also saddened and disappointed to learn that the recent outcomes among pharmacy residents were essentially the same: a dismal conversion of residents' research projects into peer-reviewed publications.Back in 2001, we discovered that the proportion of medical residents' research projects that were published in peer-reviewed journals was a paltry 28%.In 2013, Hung and Duffett have reported that the overall publication rate for pharmacy residents' projects (between 1999/2000 and 2008/2009) was 32.2%, with a rate of only 20.6% for full-text papers.As Hung and Duffett note, this situation appears to be generalized, as US pharmacy residents' publication rates ranged from 20% in 1981 to 12% in 2001.3 Given the recent proliferation of new peer-reviewed and indexed journals, both in print and online, one might have expected to see a more robust publication rate for residents' projects.The hard question that remains is "why"?One reason may be that many of the projects are simply not strong enough to merit publication, but it is difficult to believe that 70% to 80% of residents' projects are weak and unworthy.If that were true, then it would be appropriate to question the overall value of subjecting residents to the rigours of a research project: they might be better off studying something else.Both our group 2 and the authors of the most recent paper 1 theorized about the usual reasons: lack of time, lack of interest (on the part of either residents or faculty), etc.But perhaps what is really needed is a change in academic culture and attitude.The benefits of publishing should be emphasized: benefits to the individual (personal and professional satisfaction, enhanced professional profile), the department (enhanced academic stature), and the profession (improvements in clinical knowledge that may translate into better clinical practice).Having been a supervisor or co-supervisor for many residents' research projects, in both medicine/surgery and pharmacy, I realize that sometimes the immediate end point may appear to be a presentation at the local resident research day or national conference.The real (hard) end point, however, should be the submission of a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal, with "winning" defined as publication of the submitted manuscript.To quote the late, revered professional football coach Vince Lombardi, "Winning isn't everything . . . it is the only thing."Perhaps residents and their faculty supervisors need to try to "win" more often.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,040 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».