Bringing pedagogy to doctoral publishing

This article explores the role of publication in taking forward the work of the doctorate. Low publication rates from doctoral degrees have been noted as a problem in the quality of doctoral education for preparing students to participate in research cultures. At the same time there is ambivalence and some resistance among doctoral supervisors and candidates about the place of publication in doctoral work. This article argues that issues of writing and publication need to be systematically addressed within doctoral pedagogy. In a climate of increasing pressure to publish during and after candidature, pedagogies need to take up a more explicitly outward-looking stance, developing a stronger orientation to induction and participation in the world of peer-reviewed publication. These arguments are developed through two case studies that illustrate ways of supporting doctoral researchers to effectively recontextualise their dissertation writing for wider audiences.

Comparison of fracture rates between indigenous and non-indigenous populations: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION: Over recent years, there has been concerted effort to 'close the gap' in the disproportionately reduced life expectancy and increased morbidity experienced by indigenous compared to non-indigenous persons. Specific to musculoskeletal health, some data suggest that indigenous peoples have a higher risk of sustaining a fracture compared to non-indigenous peoples. This creates an imperative to identify factors that could explain differences in fracture rates. This protocol presents our aim to conduct a systematic review, first, to determine whether differences in fracture rates exist for indigenous versus non-indigenous persons and, second, to identify any risk factors that might explain these differences.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic search of PubMed, OVID, MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE to identify articles that compare all-cause fracture rates at any skeletal site between indigenous and non-indigenous persons of any age. Eligibility of studies will be determined by 2 independent reviewers. Studies will be assessed for methodological quality using a previously published process. We will conduct a meta-analysis and use established statistical methods to identify and control for heterogeneity where appropriate. Should heterogeneity prevents numerical syntheses, we will undertake a best-evidence analysis to determine the level of evidence for differences in fracture between indigenous and non-indigenous persons.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will use published data; thus, ethical permissions are not required. In addition to peer-reviewed publication, findings will be presented at (inter)national conferences, disseminated electronically and in print, and will be made available to key country-specific decision-makers with authority for indigenous health.