scholarly journals Using bibliometrics to evaluate translational science training: evidence for early career success of KL2 scholars

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Kelli Qua ◽  
Clara M. Pelfrey
Keyword(s):  
Early Stage ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Grant Funding ◽  
Federal Grant ◽  
Point Analysis ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Science Training ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

Abstract Introduction: Evaluating clinical and translational research (CTR) mentored training programs is challenging because no two programs are alike. Careful selection of appropriate metrics is required to make valid comparisons between individuals and between programs. The KL2 program provides mentored-training for early-stage CTR investigators. Clinical and Translational Awards across the country have unique KL2 programs. The evaluation of KL2 programs has begun to incorporate bibliometrics to measure KL2 scholar and program impact. Methods: This study investigated demographic differences in bibliometric performance and post-K award funding of KL2 scholars and compared the bibliometric performance and post-K award federal funding of KL2 scholars and other mentored-K awardees at the same institution. Data for this study included SciVal and iCite bibliometrics and National Institutions of Health RePORTER grant information for mentored-K awardees (K08, K23, and KL2) at Case Western Reserve University between 2005 and 2013. Results: Results showed no demographics differences within the KL2 program scholars. Bibliometric differences between KL2 and other mentored-K awardee indicated an initial KL2 advantage for the number of publications at 5 years’ post-matriculation (i.e., the start of the K award). Regression analyses indicated the number of initial publications was a significant predictor of federal grant funding at the same time point. Analysis beyond the 5-year post-matriculation point did not result in a sustained, significant KL2 advantage. Conclusions: Factors that contributed to the grant funding advantage need to be determined. Additionally, differences between translational and clinical bibliometrics must be interpreted with caution, and appropriate metrics for translational science must be established.

scholarly journals KL2 mentored career development programs at clinical and translational science award hubs: Practices and outcomes

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine A. Sorkness ◽  
Linda Scholl ◽  
Alecia M. Fair ◽  
Jason G. Umans
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Development Programs ◽  
Graduate Degrees ◽  
Training Opportunities ◽  
Career Development Award ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

AbstractIntroduction:NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) include KL2 mentored career development awards for faculty commencing clinical and translational research. A survey of KL2 leaders revealed program practices, curricular elements and compelling data about scholar characteristics and outcomes.Methods:We conducted a literature review, framed the survey construct, and obtained input from across the CTSA consortium. A REDCap survey was emailed in fall 2016 to 61 active programs.Results:Fifty-five programs (90.2%) responded. Respondents had been funded from 3 to 11 years, including 22 “mature” hubs funded for ≥8 years. Program cohort sizes were 56% “small”, 22% “medium”, and 22% “large.” Hubs offer extensive competency-aligned training opportunities relevant to clinical and translational research, including graduate degrees, mentorship, and grant-writing. Seventy-two percent of hubs report parallel “KL2-equivalent” career development programs. All hubs share their training and facilitate intermingling with other early stage investigators. A total of 1,517 KL2 scholars were funded. KL2 awardees are diverse in their disciplines, research projects, and representation; 54% are female and 12% self-identified as underrepresented in biomedical research. Eighty-seven percent of scholars have 2–3 mentors and are currently supported for 2–3 years. Seventy-eight percent of alumni remain at CTSA institutions in translational science. The most common form of NIH support following scholars’ KL2 award is an individual career development award.Conclusions:The KL2 is a unique career development award, shaped by competency-aligned training opportunities and interdisciplinary mentorship that inform translational research pathways. Tracking both traditional and novel outcomes of KL2 scholars is essential to capture their career trajectories and impact on health.

scholarly journals Using the payback framework to evaluate the outcomes of pilot projects supported by the Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Latrice Rollins ◽  
Nicole Llewellyn ◽  
Manzi Ngaiza ◽  
Eric Nehl ◽  
Dorothy R. Carter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Positive Impact ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Pilot Projects ◽  
Payback Framework

Abstract Introduction: The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) seeks to improve population health by accelerating the translation of scientific discoveries in the laboratory and clinic into practices for the community. CTSAs achieve this goal, in part, through their pilot project programs that fund promising early career investigators and innovative early-stage research projects across the translational research spectrum. However, there have been few reports on individual pilot projects and their impacts on the investigators who receive them and no studies on the long-term impact and outcomes of pilot projects. Methods: The Georgia CTSA funded 183 pilot projects from 2007 to 2015. We used a structured evaluation framework, the payback framework, to document the outcomes of 16 purposefully-selected pilot projects supported by the Georgia CTSA. We used a case study approach including bibliometric analyses of publications associated with the selected projects, document review, and investigator interviews. Results: These pilot projects had positive impact based on outcomes in five “payback categories”: (1) knowledge; (2) research targeting, capacity building, and absorption; (3) policy and product development; (4) health benefits; and (5) broader economic benefits. Conclusions: Results could inform our understanding of the diversity and breadth of outcomes resulting from Georgia CTSA-supported research and provide a framework for evaluating long-term pilot project outcomes across CTSAs.

scholarly journals A matched cohort examination of publication rates among clinical subspecialty fellows enrolled in a translational science training program

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 327-333
Author(s):  
Shawna L. Ehlers ◽  
Katherine E. Cornelius ◽  
Alexandra J. Greenberg-Worisek ◽  
David O. Warner ◽  
Karen M. Weavers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Training Program ◽  
Matched Control ◽  
Formal Training ◽  
Science Program ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
H Index ◽  
Publication Rates ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Certificate Training ◽  
Science Training

AbstractPurposeThis study examined the effectiveness of a formal postdoctoral education program designed to teach skills in clinical and translational science, using scholar publication rates as a measure of research productivity.MethodParticipants included 70 clinical fellows who were admitted to a master’s or certificate training program in clinical and translational science from 1999 to 2015 and 70 matched control peers. The primary outcomes were the number of publications 5 years post-fellowship matriculation and time to publishing 15 peer-reviewed manuscripts post-matriculation.ResultsClinical and translational science program graduates published significantly more peer-reviewed manuscripts at 5 years post-matriculation (median 8 vs 5, p=0.041) and had a faster time to publication of 15 peer-reviewed manuscripts (matched hazard ratio = 2.91, p=0.002). Additionally, program graduates’ publications yielded a significantly higher average H-index (11 vs. 7, p=0.013).ConclusionThese findings support the effectiveness of formal training programs in clinical and translational science by increasing academic productivity.

scholarly journals Feasibility of common bibliometrics in evaluating translational science

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Schneider ◽  
C. M. Kane ◽  
J. Rainwater ◽  
L. Guerrero ◽  
G. Tong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Combined Analysis ◽  
Shared Data ◽  
Thomson Reuters ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

IntroductionA pilot study by 6 Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) explored how bibliometrics can be used to assess research influence.MethodsEvaluators from 6 institutions shared data on publications (4202 total) they supported, and conducted a combined analysis with state-of-the-art tools. This paper presents selected results based on the tools from 2 widely used vendors for bibliometrics: Thomson Reuters and Elsevier.ResultsBoth vendors located a high percentage of publications within their proprietary databases (>90%) and provided similar but not equivalent bibliometrics for estimating productivity (number of publications) and influence (citation rates, percentage of papers in the top 10% of citations, observed citations relative to expected citations). A recently available bibliometric from the National Institutes of Health Office of Portfolio Analysis, examined after the initial analysis, showed tremendous potential for use in the CTSA context.ConclusionDespite challenges in making cross-CTSA comparisons, bibliometrics can enhance our understanding of the value of CTSA-supported clinical and translational research.

scholarly journals Social network analysis in Geosciences: scientific collaboration between periglacial scholars in the Iberian Peninsula

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 319-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. García-Hernández ◽  
J. Ruiz-Fernández ◽  
E. Serrano-Cañadas
Keyword(s):  
Social Network ◽  
Social Network Analysis ◽  
Network Analysis ◽  
Scientific Collaboration ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Number Of Authors

This research examines the collaboration relationships between those authors affiliated to Iberian institutions and involved in periglacial studies between 2000 and 2017. The data has been extracted from the Google Scholar database and processed using Social Network Analysis (SNA) techniques. A total of 230 scientific publications have been selected, involving 198 researchers of which 113 belong to Spanish institutions, 38 to Portuguese institutions and 47 to foreign institutions. The work carried out by the Iberian community (assembled through national groups linked to the International Permafrost Association) has considerably improved its possibilities of dissemination and citation in this period: There has been an increase in the number of publications per year, in the number of authors per publication, and in the number of publications with international collaboration. Nowadays there is a group of very productive and well-connected authors, who play an important role as intermediaries, and future prospects are good. However, 50% of the authors have a low capacity for interaction, and there is a low presence of women in the network: These imbalances should constitute the main challenges to be faced by the Iberian community in the next decade. Beyond the Iberian community of periglacial scholars, this study provides an example of methodology to be applied in other co-authorship networks in subdisciplines of the Earth Sciences, and its results are discussed in this sense. The results of this research offer valuable information for the management of scientific collaboration programs, the selection of representatives and to weigh the possibilities and needs of the Iberian network. But, especially, it presents a socioscientific framework of reference for early career scientists and makes them aware of the need to integrate themselves into a booming scientific community.

scholarly journals Mentored training and its association with dissemination and implementation research output: a quasi-experimental evaluation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebekah R Jacob ◽  
Angeline Gacad ◽  
Margaret Padek ◽  
Graham A Colditz ◽  
Karen M Emmons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Training Program ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Practice Change ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Grant Funding ◽  
Federal Grant ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Research

Abstract BackgroundThere is continued need to evaluate training programs in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. Scientific products yielded from trainees are an important and objective measure to understand capacity growth within the D&I field. This study evaluates our mentored training program in terms of scientific productivity among applicants.MethodsPost-doctoral and early career cancer researchers were recruited and applied to the R25 Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) between 2014 and 2017. Using application details and publicly available bibliometric and funding data, we compared selected fellows with unsuccessful applicants (nonfellows). We extracted Scopus citations and US federal grant funding records for all applicants (N=102). Funding and publication abstracts were de-identified and coded for D&I focus and aggregated to the applicant level for analysis. Logistic regression models were explored separately for the odds of 1) a D&I publication and 2) US federal grant funding post year of application among fellows (N=55) and nonfellows (N=47). Additional models were constructed including independent variables that attenuated the program’s association by 5 percent or more. Only US-based applicants (N=87) were included in grant funding analysis.ResultsFellows and nonfellows were similar across several demographic characteristics. Fellows were more than 3 times more likely than nonfellows to have grant funding after MT-DIRC application year (OR 3.2; 95% CI: 1.1-11.0) while controlling for time since application year; the association estimate was 3.1 (95% CI: 1.0-11.0) after adjusting for both cancer research area and previous grant funding. For publications, fellows were almost 4 times more likely to publish D&I focused work adjusting for time (OR 3.8; 95% CI: 1.7-9.0). This association lessened after adjusting for previous D&I publication and years since undergraduate degree (OR 2.9; 95% CI: 1.2-7.5).ConclusionsWe document the association of a mentored training approach with built-in networks of peers to yield productive D&I researchers. Future evaluation efforts could be expanded to include other terms of longer-term productivity such as policy or practice change as additional objective measures. D&I research trainings in the US and internationally should consider common evaluation measures.Contributions to the literature• The number of trainings in dissemination and implementation (D&I) continues to expand globally. Few D&I training evaluations are published and those evaluations reported tend to be small-scale and short term with limited measures of impact.• This study reports that our training program enhances academic productivity and highlights that mentored training for D&I scholars is an essential approach for building capacity for D&I research.• Using publicly available data, the methods in this study could be replicated with other D&I trainings to compare impact across fields.

scholarly journals Mentored training and its association with dissemination and implementation research output: a quasi-experimental evaluation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebekah R Jacob ◽  
Angeline Gacad ◽  
Margaret Padek ◽  
Graham A Colditz ◽  
Karen M Emmons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Research ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Objective Measure ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Practice Change ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Grant Funding ◽  
Federal Grant ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Research

Abstract Background There is continued need to evaluate training programs in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. Scientific products yielded from trainees are an important and objective measure to understand capacity growth within the D&I field. This study evaluates our mentored training program in terms of scientific productivity among applicants.Methods Post-doctoral and early career cancer researchers were recruited and applied to the R25 Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) between 2014 and 2017. Using application details and publicly available bibliometric and funding data, we compared selected fellows with unsuccessful applicants (nonfellows). We extracted Scopus citations and US federal grant funding records for all applicants (N=102). Funding and publication abstracts were de-identified and coded for D&I focus and aggregated to the applicant level for analysis. Logistic regression models were explored separately for the odds of 1) a D&I publication and 2) US federal grant funding post year of application among fellows (N=55) and nonfellows (N=47). Additional models were constructed including independent variables that attenuated the program’s association by 5 percent or more. Only US-based applicants (N=87) were included in grant funding analysis.Results Fellows and nonfellows were similar across several demographic characteristics. Fellows were more than 3 times more likely than nonfellows to have grant funding after MT-DIRC application year (OR 3.2; 95% CI: 1.1-11.0) while controlling for time since application year; the association estimate was 3.1 (95% CI: 0.98-11.0) after adjusting for both cancer research area and previous grant funding. For publications, fellows were almost 4 times more likely to publish D&I focused work adjusting for time (OR 3.8; 95% CI: 1.7-9.0). This association lessened after adjusting for previous D&I publication and years since undergraduate degree (OR 2.9; 95% CI: 1.2-7.5).Conclusions We document the association of a mentored training approach with built-in networks of peers to yield productive D&I researchers. Future evaluation efforts could be expanded to include other terms of longer-term productivity such as policy or practice change as additional objective measures. D&I research trainings in the US and internationally should consider common evaluation measures.

scholarly journals Cross-Center Virtual Education Fellowship Program for Early-Career Researchers in Atrial Fibrillation

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tinuola B. Ajayi ◽  
Christy D. Remein ◽  
Randall S. Stafford ◽  
Angela Fagerlin ◽  
Mina K. Chung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Population Health ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Career Stage ◽  
Fellowship Program ◽  
Pedagogical Model ◽  
Grant Applications

Background: It is estimated that over 46 million individuals have atrial fibrillation (AF) worldwide, and the incidence and prevalence of AF are increasing globally. There is an urgent need to accelerate the academic development of scientists possessing the skills to conduct innovative, collaborative AF research. Methods: We designed and implemented a virtual AF Strategically Focused Research Network Cross-Center Fellowship program to enhance the competencies of early-stage AF basic, clinical, and population health researchers through experiential education and mentorship. The pedagogical model involves significant cross-center collaboration to produce a curriculum focused on enhancing AF scientific competencies, fostering career/professional development, and cultivating grant writing skills. Outcomes for success involve clear expectations for fellows to produce manuscripts, presentations, and—for those at the appropriate career stage–grant applications. We evaluated the effectiveness of the fellowship model via mixed methods formative and summative surveys. Results: In 2 years of the fellowship, fellows generally achieved the productivity metrics sought by our pedagogical model, with outcomes for the 12 fellows including 50 AF-related manuscripts, 7 publications, 28 presentations, and 3 grant awards applications. Participant evaluations reported that the fellowship effectively met its educational objectives. All fellows reported medium to high satisfaction with the overall fellowship, webinar content and facilitation, staff communication and support, and program organization. Conclusions: The fellowship model represents an innovative educational strategy by providing a virtual AF training and mentoring curriculum for early-career basic, clinical, and population health scientists working across multiple institutions, which is particularly valuable in the pandemic era.

First person – Fanny Jaudon and Martina Albini

2021 ◽  
Vol 134 (16) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Neurotrophic Factor ◽  
Neurological Disorders ◽  
Molecular Mechanisms ◽  
Neurological Diseases ◽  
Early Career ◽  
First Person ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
And Function ◽  
The University ◽  
Selection Of

ABSTRACT First Person is a series of interviews with the first authors of a selection of papers published in Journal of Cell Science, helping early-career researchers promote themselves alongside their papers. Fanny Jaudon and Martina Albini are co-first authors on ‘ A developmental stage- and Kidins220-dependent switch in astrocyte responsiveness to brain-derived neurotrophic factor’, published in JCS. Fanny is a postdoc at the University of Trieste in the lab of Lorenzo A. Cingolani at Center for Synaptic Neuroscience and Technology, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy, investigating the molecular mechanisms controlling development and function of neuronal circuits and implementing genome-editing approaches for the treatment of neurological disorders. Martina is a PhD student at the Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia in the lab of Fabio Benfenati and Fabrizia Cesca investigating neurotrophin biology and its involvement in neurological diseases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document