Faster, Higher, Stronger – Together? A bibliometric analysis of author distribution in top medical education journals

Dawit Wondimagegn, Cynthia Whitehead, Carrie Cartmill, Eloy Rodrigues, Antonia Correia, Tiago Salessi Lins, Manuel Joao Costa
{"title":"Faster, Higher, Stronger – Together? A bibliometric analysis of author distribution in top medical education journals","authors":"Dawit Wondimagegn, Cynthia Whitehead, Carrie Cartmill, Eloy Rodrigues, Antonia Correia, Tiago Salessi Lins, Manuel Joao Costa","doi":"10.1101/2022.03.29.22273128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Medical education and medical education research are growing industries that have become increasingly globalized. Recognition of the colonial foundations of medical education has led to a growing focus on issues of equity, absence, and marginalization. One area of absence that has been under-explored is that of published voices from low- and middle-income countries. We undertook a bibliometric analysis of five top medical education journals to determine which countries were absent and which countries were represented in prestigious first and last authorship positions. Methods: Web of Science was searched for all articles and reviews published between 2012 and 2018 within Academic Medicine, Medical Education, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Medical Teacher, and BMC Medical Education. Country of origin was identified for first and last author of each publication, and the number of publications originating from each country were counted. Results: Our analysis revealed a dominance of first and last authors from five countries: USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Australia. Authors from these five countries had first or last authored 74% of publications. Of the 195 countries in the world, 53% were not represented by a single publication. There was a slight increase in the percentage of publications from outside of these five countries from 22% in 2012 to 29% in 2018. Conclusion: The dominance of wealthy nations within spaces that claim to be international is a finding that requires attention. We draw upon analogies from modern Olympic sport and our own collaborative research process to show how academic publishing continues to be a colonized space that advantages those from wealthy and English-speaking countries.","PeriodicalId":501387,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Medical Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.29.22273128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Medical education and medical education research are growing industries that have become increasingly globalized. Recognition of the colonial foundations of medical education has led to a growing focus on issues of equity, absence, and marginalization. One area of absence that has been under-explored is that of published voices from low- and middle-income countries. We undertook a bibliometric analysis of five top medical education journals to determine which countries were absent and which countries were represented in prestigious first and last authorship positions. Methods: Web of Science was searched for all articles and reviews published between 2012 and 2018 within Academic Medicine, Medical Education, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Medical Teacher, and BMC Medical Education. Country of origin was identified for first and last author of each publication, and the number of publications originating from each country were counted. Results: Our analysis revealed a dominance of first and last authors from five countries: USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Australia. Authors from these five countries had first or last authored 74% of publications. Of the 195 countries in the world, 53% were not represented by a single publication. There was a slight increase in the percentage of publications from outside of these five countries from 22% in 2012 to 29% in 2018. Conclusion: The dominance of wealthy nations within spaces that claim to be international is a finding that requires attention. We draw upon analogies from modern Olympic sport and our own collaborative research process to show how academic publishing continues to be a colonized space that advantages those from wealthy and English-speaking countries.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
更快,更高,更强-一起?顶级医学教育期刊作者分布的文献计量分析
医学教育和医学教育研究是日益全球化的新兴产业。认识到医学教育的殖民基础导致了对公平、缺席和边缘化问题的日益关注。尚未得到充分探索的一个缺失领域是低收入和中等收入国家发表的声音。我们对五个顶级医学教育期刊进行了文献计量分析,以确定哪些国家缺席,哪些国家在著名的第一作者和最后作者位置上有代表性。方法:在Web of Science检索2012年至2018年间发表在学术医学、医学教育、健康科学教育进展、医学教师和BMC医学教育中的所有文章和评论。确定了每一出版物的第一和最后作者的原产国,并计算了来自每个国家的出版物的数量。结果:我们的分析显示第一作者和最后作者主要来自五个国家:美国、加拿大、英国、荷兰和澳大利亚。来自这五个国家的作者是74%出版物的第一作者或最后作者。在世界195个国家中,53%的国家没有一份出版物。来自这五个国家以外的出版物的百分比从2012年的22%略微增加到2018年的29%。结论:富裕国家在声称国际化的空间中占据主导地位是一个需要关注的发现。我们从现代奥林匹克运动和我们自己的合作研究过程中得出类比,以表明学术出版如何继续成为一个殖民空间,有利于那些来自富裕和英语国家的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Barriers and facilitators for the implementation of wiki- and blog-based Virtual Learning Environments as tools for improving collaborative learning in the Bachelor of Nursing degree. Comparative Analysis of Stress Responses in Medical Students Using Virtual Reality Versus Traditional 3D-Printed Mannequins for Pericardiocentesis Training The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Modern Medical Education and Practice: A Systematic Literature Review Precision Education Tools for Pediatrics Trainees: A Mixed-Methods Multi-Site Usability Assessment Silence in physician clinical practice: a scoping review protocol
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1