Background: Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences. Methods: Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency. Discussion: The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. Systematic review registration: This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/.
DOCUMENT
The definition of ‘Assistive Technology’ (AT) includes both assistive products and the services or actions necessary for safe and effective provision of the assistive products to people who need them. International standards and product specifications exist for assistive products. Despite huge unmet need for effective AT provision, a variety of service delivery models across different countries, and a shortage of personnel trained in this field, nowidely useable and accepted AT service provision guidelines currently exist. Aligned with contemporary global initiatives to improve access to AT, a scoping review was commissioned to inform the development of globally useable provision guidance. The aim was to deliver a rapid scoping review of the literature regarding quality guidelines for AT service provision. Method: The rapid scoping review utilised a two-tiered approach to identifying relevant publications: 1) systematic search of academic databases; 2) consultation with assistive technology organisations. The review was conducted in March 2023 across four databases (Medline, CINAHL, SCOPUS and Google Scholar) with no date limitations. Systematic outreach to international and global AT networks was used to access expert informants. Non-English publications were included utilizing Google Translate and support from expert informants to verify content. Analysis was guided by the body of work on quality AT provision and service delivery processes in Europe, as well as the World Health Organization-GATE 5P framework for strengthening access to AT. Results: The search strategies yielded 41 publications from diverse countries, and directed at differing assistive products, personnel and provision contexts. Results are reported from the charted data through to the data extraction framework, including type of publication, study design, audience and reach. We report on the type of AT and the AT provision ecosystem elements discussed, and service delivery process or steps and quality criteria service delivery. Conclusion: This review did not find established guidelines or standards for service provision, but it did identify key service delivery steps which may form part of such guidelines, and many of the 3 publications included mentioned the need for practice guidelines. Despite different contexts such as type of assistive product, recipient of the guidance, language, location and authorship, core elements of AT provision including service delivery steps can be identified. Consideration regarding the nuances of vocabulary, of process, and of enabling flexible foci, is recommended in systematizing globally applicable guidance. This review offers a strong starting point for developing guidance for assistive technology provision to meet global need.
DOCUMENT
There has been limited adoption of Immersive Journalism (IJ) by the audience; simultaneously, the audience’s perspective is rarely considered in the production and research of IJ. At this point, however, it is crucial to incorporate an audience perspective to identify potentially unintended effects of IJ and improve on the innovation of IJ. This study investigates the audience’s experience and evaluation of IJ by qualitatively analyzing their thoughts after viewing two IJ cases. Our results indicate that the audience may pick up on intended effects, such as a sense of presence and an intense emotional experience, but some also express unease towards these effects. Furthermore, the audience struggles to comprehend this study’s two immersive journalistic cases as part of the journalistic genre. These findings provide insight into the gap between the initial hype and the current reality of IJ and provide the basis for propositions for future IJ productions.
MULTIFILE
