Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38295057›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Factors influencing the work of researchers in Scientific Initiation: A systematic review protocol.

Woska Pires da Costa, Michele da Silva Valadão Fernandes, Aamir Raoof Memon, Priscilla Rayanne E Silva Noll, Marcos de Moraes Sousa, Matias Noll

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Woska Pires da CostaInstituto Federal Goiano-Campus Ceres, Ceres, Goiás, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8841-2039
Michele da Silva Valadão FernandesInstituto Federal Goiano-Campus Ceres, Ceres, Goiás, Brazil.
Aamir Raoof MemonInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
Priscilla Rayanne E Silva NollInstituto Federal Goiano-Campus Ceres, Ceres, Goiás, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3715-1956
Marcos de Moraes SousaInstituto Federal Goiano-Campus Ceres, Ceres, Goiás, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0901-0550
Matias NollInstituto Federal Goiano-Campus Ceres, Ceres, Goiás, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1482-0718

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionScientific Initiation (SI) is an educational activity that allows students to begin their scientific training and research under the guidance of an experienced researcher. While several studies have examined students' perceptions of SI, research on the perspective of researchers working in this field is currently lacking. Thus, this study's aim is to describe the protocol design for conducting a systematic review. At the same time, the review aims also to identify factors influencing the work of researchers in SI and explore the motivations leading researchers to engage in research projects within institutions and their respective impacts. METHOD AND ANALYSES: Literature search will be done using the bibliographic databases, including Academic Search Premier, APA PsycNet, CINAHL Plus, ERIC, SocINDEX, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy was guided by the PICo framework (Population, phenomenon of Interest, and Context). The preparation and development of this protocol following guidelines were employed: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015), Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies 2015 (PRESS 2015), and PRISMA-Search (PRISMA-S). Original, peer-reviewed articles that examine the factors related to the work of researchers in SI will be included without any language or publication date restrictions. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies will be screened by two independent researchers. The included studies will be analyzed to identify factors, policies, and their impacts obtained analytically. Findings will be objectively categorized and synthetically represented through figures, diagrams, and graphic models. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) and the Downs and Black checklists. A third senior reviewer will resolve any discrepancies. DISCUSSION: We aim to understand the factors that drive researchers to engage in SI research through the dissemination of the findings of this systematic review. This may aid the development of institutional strategies and actions that can support the enhancement of SI programs and encourage greater researcher participation.

Identifiers

PMID38295057
PMCPMC10829991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.