Un an après la crise des pénuries de médicaments Sandoz : peu d’avancées
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".