Current Issues in Social Medicine and Public Health from the Viewpoint of Early-career Researchers: Summary of Opinions at the Social Medicine Young Retreat

Harada, Kouji H.; Hara, Koji; Yamamoto, Takuma; Endo, Motoki; Uchida, Mitsuo; Kuwahara, Keisuke

doi:10.31662/jmaj.2021-0219

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 26 Clinical and social medicine, in contrast to basic medicine, sometimes focus on the domestic context, which is separate from international journals. 23 Furthermore, researchers in clinical or social medicine are expected to engage in a variety of tasks in addition to writing papers in English (eg, clinical practice, guideline development and social practice). Therefore, it is not easy to establish a universal evaluation axis across research fields.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical researchers’ perceptions regarding research evaluation: a web-based survey in Japan

Minoura,

Shimada,

Kuwahara

et al. 2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesJapanese medical academia continues to depend on quantitative indicators, contrary to the general trend in research evaluation. To understand this situation better and facilitate discussion, this study aimed to examine how Japanese medical researchers perceive quantitative indicators and qualitative factors of research evaluation and their differences by the researchers’ characteristics.DesignWe employed a web-based cross-sectional survey and distributed the self-administered questionnaire to academic society members via the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences.ParticipantsWe received 3139 valid responses representing Japanese medical researchers in any medical research field (basic, clinical and social medicine).OutcomesThe subjective importance of quantitative indicators and qualitative factors in evaluating researchers (eg, the journal impact factor (IF) or the originality of the research topic) was assessed on a four-point scale, with 1 indicating ‘especially important’ and 4 indicating ‘not important’. The attitude towards various opinions in quantitative and qualitative research evaluation (eg, the possibility of research misconduct or susceptibility to unconscious bias) was also evaluated on a four-point scale, ranging from 1, ‘strongly agree’, to 4, ‘completely disagree’.ResultsNotably, 67.4% of the medical researchers, particularly men, younger and basic medicine researchers, responded that the journal IF was important in researcher evaluation. Most researchers (88.8%) agreed that some important studies do not get properly evaluated in research evaluation using quantitative indicators. The respondents perceived quantitative indicators as possibly leading to misconduct, especially in basic medicine (strongly agree—basic, 22.7%; clinical, 11.7%; and social, 16.1%). According to the research fields, researchers consider different qualitative factors, such as the originality of the research topic (especially important—basic, 46.2%; social, 39.1%; and clinical, 32.0%) and the contribution to solving clinical and social problems (especially important—basic, 30.4%; clinical, 41.0%; and social, 52.0%), as important. Older researchers tended to believe that qualitative research evaluation was unaffected by unconscious bias.ConclusionDespite recommendations from the Declaration on Research Assessment and the Leiden Manifesto to de-emphasise quantitative indicators, this study found that Japanese medical researchers have actually tended to prioritise the journal IF and other quantitative indicators based on English-language publications in their research evaluation. Therefore, constantly reviewing the research evaluation methods while respecting the viewpoints of researchers from different research fields, generations and genders is crucial.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical researchers’ perceptions regarding research evaluation: a web-based survey in Japan

Minoura,

Shimada,

Kuwahara

et al. 2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

未来を切り拓く力の育成と連携―社会医学における若手の活動の進め方・支え方：シンポジウム開催を振り返って―

KOBAYASHI,

NAGAYOSHI,

KANAMORI

et al. 2023

Nippon Eiseigaku Zasshi (Japanese Journal of Hygiene)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recruitment and training of early-career researchers are important for the development of science, especially in countries with low birth rates, such as Japan. In several academic societies for social medicine, early-career researchers have formed associations for the purposes of networking and career development. However, to date, little information about the activities of these associations has been shared. Therefore, we organized a symposium at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society for Hygiene (March 4, 2023) to introduce the early-career researcher associations that have been formed within five academic societies namely the Japanese Society for Hygiene, Japan Epidemiological Association, Japan Society for Occupational Health, Japan Society for Medical Education, and Japan Society for Healthcare Administration. In this paper, we summarize the activities, challenges, and future prospects of each association and their strategies for future development and collaboration on the basis of presentations and discussions at the symposium.

show abstract

Current Issues in Social Medicine and Public Health from the Viewpoint of Early-career Researchers: Summary of Opinions at the Social Medicine Young Retreat

Cited by 2 publications

References 5 publications

Medical researchers’ perceptions regarding research evaluation: a web-based survey in Japan

Medical researchers’ perceptions regarding research evaluation: a web-based survey in Japan

未来を切り拓く力の育成と連携―社会医学における若手の活動の進め方・支え方：シンポジウム開催を振り返って―

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About