BackgroundPromoting Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a major strategy of the “Science with and for Society” work program of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. RRI aims to achieve a better alignment of research and innovation with the values, needs, and expectations of society. The RRI strategy includes the “keys” of public engagement, open access, gender, ethics, and science education. The Structural Transformation to Attain Responsible BIOSciences (STARBIOS2) project promotes RRI in 6 European research institutions and universities from Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Poland, and the United Kingdom, in partnership with a further 6 institutions from Brazil, Denmark, Italy, South Africa, Sweden, and the United States.ObjectiveThe project aims to attain RRI structural change in 6 European institutions by implementing action plans (APs) and developing APs for 3 non-European institutions active in the field of biosciences; use the implementation of APs as a learning process with a view to developing a set of guidelines on the implementation of RRI; and develop a sustainable model for RRI in biosciences.MethodsThe project comprises interrelated research and implementation designed to achieve the aforementioned specific objectives. The project is organized into 6 core work packages and 5 supporting work packages. The core work packages deal with the implementation of institutional APs in 6 European institutions based on the structural change activation model. The supporting work packages include technical assistance, learning process on RRI-oriented structural change, monitoring and assessment, communication and dissemination, and project management.ResultsThe project is funded by Horizon 2020 and will run for 4 years (May 2016-April 2020). As of June 2018, the initial phase has been completed. The participating institutions have developed and approved APs and commenced their implementation. An observation tool has been launched by the Technical Assistance Team to collect information from the implementation of APs; the Evaluation & Assessment team has started monitoring the advancement of the project. As part of the communication and dissemination strategy, a project website, a Facebook page, and a Twitter account have been launched and are updated periodically. The International Scientific Advisory Committee has been formed to advise on the reporting and dissemination of the project’s results.ConclusionsIn the short term, we anticipate that the project will have a considerable impact on the organizational processes and structures, improving the RRI uptake in the participating institutions. In the medium term, we expect to make RRI-oriented organizational change scalable across Europe by developing guidelines on RRI implementation and an RRI model in biosciences. In the long term, we expect that the project would help increase the ability of research institutions to make discoveries and innovations in better alignment with societal needs and values.Internat...

ObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignDescriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).DataData comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols).Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors.ConclusionsAlthough the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.

ObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of success in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignA retrospective descriptive study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.Data2409 publications accepted or published from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2017.Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised clinical research (39%, n=939), basic research (27%, n=643), and other types of research (34%, n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories. Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169), and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant smaller proportions i.e. 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared to male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author(s) with gender of the first author(s) (χ 2 33.742, P < 0.001), corresponding author(s) (χ2 540.774, P < 0.001) and joint last author(s) (χ 2 91.291, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAlthough there are increasing trends of female authors as first authors (41%) and last authors (23%), female authors are underrepresented compared to male authors in all six categories of scientific authorship in biomedical research. Further research is needed to encourage gender parity in different categories of scientific authorship.Strengths and limitations of this studyThis is the first study to investigate gender parity in six categories of scientific authorship: first authors, first corresponding authors, last authors and three joint authorship categories i.e. joint first authors, joint corresponding authors and joint last authors in biomedical research.This study provides an important benchmark on gender equity in scientific authorship for other NIHR funded centres and organisations in England.The generalisability of the findings of this study may be limited due to differences in medical specialities, research areas, institutional cultures, and levels of support to individual researchers.Using secondary sources for determining the gender of authors may have limitations, which could be avoided by seeking relevant information from original authors and institution affiliation at the time of submission.

Abstract

Introduction To predict patient outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI) lesions, various scores have been proposed, which use objective assessments. These scores, however, rely on the observer's ability to determine them. This study presents a comprehensive, reproducible, and more anatomically stratified objective measurement of the degree of basal cistern effacement in brain computed tomographic (CT) scan images. Methods Patients with TBI admitted from August 2015 to February 2016 were included. The control group consisted of non-trauma patients, who had normal brain CT scans. The images were analyzed by an automated volumetric compression ratio (CR) defined as the volume ratio between the parenchymal tissue and the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the basal cisterns. This value was compared with the TBI severity recorded at each patient's admission and a consensus score of the basal cisterns' degree of effacement by manual analysis. Results Seventy-three TBI patients were admitted. The mean admission Glasow Coma Scale (GCS) score was 9. In the non-TBI control group, 29 patients were enrolled. The average kappa value for the inter-observer agreement was 0.583. The CR had an inverse linear relationship with the severity of the TBI and the degree of effacement of the basal cisterns. The correlation between the CR value in the midbrain and the specialists' consensus determination was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The CR also showed a difference between the TBI and the control groups (p 0.0001). Conclusions The automated CR is a useful objective variable to determine the degree of basal cistern effacement. The proposed ratio has a good correlation with the classical basal cistern effacement classification and TBI severity.