Taking histories: joint working of disciplines in medical history scholarship.
Authorship
Bibliometric analysis
History of medicine
Interdisciplinary studies
Journal
Irish journal of medical science
ISSN: 1863-4362
Titre abrégé: Ir J Med Sci
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 7806864
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
14
12
2020
accepted:
06
01
2021
pubmed:
13
1
2021
medline:
21
10
2021
entrez:
12
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
While there is an increasing emphasis on the value of interdisciplinarity in scholarship in the medical humanities, it is unknown to what extent there is joint working between historians and clinicians in medical history. We aimed to quantify evidence of joint working in authorship of medical history papers. Observational survey of authorship. We studied authorship data in all papers published in the three major medical history journals between 2009 and 2019 (n = 634). The majority of medical history papers is written by single authors with single disciplinary affiliations (68%), most commonly history (65%): fewer than one paper in seven (14%) shows evidence of joint working between disciplines in authorship. A minority of papers (8%) are written by authors with primary medical affiliations. Almost three-quarters (71%) of papers have an acknowledgements section, but only 6% shows clear evidence of joint working between disciplines in the acknowledgements. Scholarship engaging both historians and clinicians is rare in medical history journals. Possible solutions include enhanced research collaborations between historians and clinicians, interdisciplinary educational seminars and cross-institutional knowledge exchanges.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
OBJECTIVE
While there is an increasing emphasis on the value of interdisciplinarity in scholarship in the medical humanities, it is unknown to what extent there is joint working between historians and clinicians in medical history. We aimed to quantify evidence of joint working in authorship of medical history papers.
METHODS
METHODS
Observational survey of authorship. We studied authorship data in all papers published in the three major medical history journals between 2009 and 2019 (n = 634).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The majority of medical history papers is written by single authors with single disciplinary affiliations (68%), most commonly history (65%): fewer than one paper in seven (14%) shows evidence of joint working between disciplines in authorship. A minority of papers (8%) are written by authors with primary medical affiliations. Almost three-quarters (71%) of papers have an acknowledgements section, but only 6% shows clear evidence of joint working between disciplines in the acknowledgements.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Scholarship engaging both historians and clinicians is rare in medical history journals. Possible solutions include enhanced research collaborations between historians and clinicians, interdisciplinary educational seminars and cross-institutional knowledge exchanges.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33432442
doi: 10.1007/s11845-021-02511-8
pii: 10.1007/s11845-021-02511-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1533-1535Informations de copyright
© 2021. Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland.
Références
Evans HM, Macnaughton J (2004) Should medical humanities be a multidisciplinary or an interdisciplinary study? Med Humanit 30:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmh.2004.000143
doi: 10.1136/jmh.2004.000143
pubmed: 23671234
Burnham JC (1999) A brief history of medical practitioners and professional historians as writers of medical history. Health Hist 1:250–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/40111358
doi: 10.2307/40111358
Anonymous (1980) Medical history without medicine. J Hist Med Allied Sci 35:5–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/XXXV.1.5
doi: 10.1093/jhmas/XXXV.1.5
Kushner HI (2008) Medical historians and the history of medicine. Lancet 372:710–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61293-3
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61293-3
pubmed: 18767211
Humphreys M (2019) The social history of medicine: some thoughts (and questions). Soc Hist Med 3:11–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/shm/hkz113
doi: 10.1093/shm/hkz113
Porter R, Micale M (1994) Introduction: reflections on psychiatry and its histories. In: Micale MS, Porter R (eds) Discovering the history of psychiatry. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, pp 3–36
King R, Al-Khabouri J, Kelly B et al (2019) Authorship in the medical humanities: breaking cross-field boundaries or maintaining disciplinary divides? J Med Humanit. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-019-09585-7
Nair KM, Dolovich L, Brazil K, Raina P (2008) It’s all about relationships: a qualitative study of health researchers’ perspectives of conducting interdisciplinary health research. BMC Health Serv Res 8:110. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-110
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-110
pubmed: 18501005
pmcid: 2424045
Coates C (1999) Interpreting academic acknowledgements in English studies: professors, their partners, and peers. Engl Stud Can Esc 25:253–276. https://doi.org/10.1353/esc.1999.0020
doi: 10.1353/esc.1999.0020
Paul-Hus A, Desrochers N (2019) Acknowledgements are not just thank you notes: a qualitative analysis of acknowledgements content in scientific articles and reviews published in 2015. PLoS One 14:e0226727. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226727
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226727
pubmed: 31856236
pmcid: 6922370
McNutt MK, Bradford M, Drazen JM et al (2018) Transparency in authors' contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115:2557–2560. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1715374115
pubmed: 29487213
pmcid: 5856527