Abstract
Background and aims
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
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
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
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.
Data availability
Data available from corresponding author on request.
References
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
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
Anonymous (1980) Medical history without medicine. J Hist Med Allied Sci 35:5–7. https://doi.org/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
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
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
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
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to all stages of this paper.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Duma, D., Wong, L., O’Neill, D. et al. Taking histories: joint working of disciplines in medical history scholarship. Ir J Med Sci 190, 1533–1535 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02511-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02511-8