Is It Time for Operation Warp Speed in Transplant Research?
Is It Time for Operation Warp Speed in Transplant Research?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/txd.0000000000001073
复制
发表时间：
2020-11
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Mannon RB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mannon RB
在过去的30年里，学术医学经历了性别转型，在美国接受培训的医科学生中，女性占大多数，而传统上以男性为主的专业，如内科和普通外科，女性占约40%。然而，在职业发展方面，仍然存在着显著的脱节，在美国的学术医疗中心，女性仅占教职员工的41%，在包括系主任和院长在内的领导职位中，女性仅占18%。当你意识到只有13%的全职教师是少数族裔时，这些数字就更令人沮丧了。同样，2017年博士项目的受训者中有60%是女性，但在美国，只有46%的女性担任博士后职位，只有约三分之一的基础科学教师是女性。尽管这些数字在过去十年中有所改善，但这些变化充其量是渐进的。这份美国医学院协会（Association of American Medical Colleges）的报告(1)不仅包括医学培训，还包括博士和博士后的经历)的主要结论是，机构“必须继续指导女性”，并“鼓励她们追求这些高级职位，促进学术医学事业的发展”。简而言之，这是一个很好的建议，但当这里的挑战更复杂时，很难找到一个通用的解决方案。它们包括工作与生活的平衡、性骚扰、隐性偏见、薪酬差距和学术生产力，并因具体的中心和地区而异。尽管这些评论反映了一般的医学培训和职业，但迄今为止，在涉及两个不同大洲的移植研究中发现了不足之处。3,4晋升和终身职位的职业发展的关键是个人生产力，通常定义为拨款和同行评审的出版物。后者也被视为衡量个人在其领域影响力的指标。一些学术中心利用自动化数据库，如Scopus，来整理和定期更新教师的书目，突出专业知识，提高声誉。赫希指数或h指数更倾向于作者特定的指标，它结合了论文（数量）和引用（即质量或影响），不受不常被引用的论文或已被高被引论文的引用增加的影响，经常被用来衡量个人的发表影响及其未来作为关键贡献者的潜力。虽然不完美，但这些工具已被广泛接受，并经常被纳入教职员工的晋升评估中。然而，一项详细的、全球范围内的移植研究研究人员发表指标的分析以前没有进行过。在这一期的《Transplantation Direct》中，Benjamens等人利用英国用于确定移植相关研究的研究经费不足的研究方法3，评估了女性和男性研究者在移植方面的发表记录。不足为奇的是，在移植研究各个领域的前四分之一“高影响力”期刊中，有近16000篇论文符合研究条件，其中女性第一作者仅占36%，高级作者仅占30%。尽管这在过去20年里有所增加，但这种差距在移植研究领域排名前10位的科学生产力国家中几乎都很明显。最极端的是日本，只有18%的女性是第一作者，而荷兰的差距最小。这些发现伴随着统计学上的…
Academic medicine has undergone a gender transformation over the last 3 decades, with women now making up the majority of medical students trained in the United States and traditionally male-dominated specialties like Internal Medicine and General Surgery composed of≈ 40% women. Yet, there continues to be a remarkable disconnect in terms of career advancement, with women representing only 41% of faculty members in academic medical centers in the United States and only 18% of leadership positions including department chairs and deans headed by women. 1 These numbers are even more dismal when you recognize that only 13% of full-time faculty are underrepresented minorities. Likewise, trainees in doctorate programs in 2017 were 60% women, but only 46% women make up postdoctoral positions in the United States and only about a third of basic science teaching faculty composed of women. Although these numbers have improved over the last decade, the changes are incremental at best. Key takeaways from this Association of American Medical Colleges report, 1 which includes not only medical training but doctoral and postdoctoral experiences, are that institutions “must continue to mentor women” and “to encourage them to pursue these advanced positions and promote careers in academic medicine.” In short, this is great advice but difficult to find a one-size-fits-all solution when the challenges here are more complex. They include work-life balance, sexual harassment, implicit bias, pay gap, and academic productivity2 and vary by specific center and geography. Although these comments reflect medical training and careers in general, to date, there have been deficiencies identified in transplantation research involving 2 different continents. 3, 4 Key for the career advancement of promotion and tenure is individual productivity, typically defined as grant funding and peer-reviewed publications. The latter are also considered as a metric of an individual’s impact on their field. Some academic centers utilize automated databases, such as Scopus, to curate and regularly update bibliographies of faculty members, highlighting expertise and enhancing reputation. 5 Moving more toward authorspecific metric, the Hirsch or h-index, a measure that combines papers (quantity) and citations (ie, quality or impact) that is not affected by infrequently cited papers or by increases in citations to already highly cited papers, is frequently used to provide a metric of publication impact by individuals and their future potential as key contributors. 6 Although not perfect, such tools have become widely accepted and frequently included in reviews of faculty members for promotion. However, a detailed, worldwide analysis of publication metrics for investigators in transplant research has not been previously undertaken. In this issue of Transplantation Direct, Benjamens et al, leveraging research methods used to identify research funding deficiencies in the United Kingdom for transplantation-related research, 3 evaluate the publication records of female and male investigators in transplantation. 7 Not surprisingly, of nearly 16 000 publications eligible for the study in first quartile “high impact” journals for each field in transplant research, woman comprised only 36% of first authors and only 30% of senior authors. Although this represents an increase over the last 2 decades, this disparity was apparent in nearly all of the top 10 scientifically productive countries in transplant research. Most extreme was Japan, where only 18% of women were first authors, whereas the Netherlands demonstrated the least disparity. These findings were accompanied by statistically …