Explore the vast range of titles available.

Firms frequently publish scientific articles as part of their R&D initiatives, motivated by commercial objectives. However, the extent of industry involvement in publishing varies across different scientific fields and can have implications for research within those fields. Novelty in science is associated with scientific and technological breakthroughs. In this paper, we examine a field-level antecedent of novelty-the extent of industry publishing contribution to a field-and its association with two key aspects of recombinant novelty of publications: the occurrence of a novel recombination (novelty occurrence), and the degree of novelty, captured through novelty breadth, reflecting the scope of novel integration of knowledge elements, and novelty distance, reflecting the extremity of conceptual divergence among novel knowledge recombinations. Drawing on a longitudinal dataset of 11.1 million publications across 1639 STEM fields from 2000 to 2014, we find that greater industry publishing contribution within a scientific field is associated with higher odds of novelty occurrence and greater novelty breadth, but lower novelty distance. Notably, university is an important driver of our results across the three dimensions of novelty highlighting the importance of industry publishing contribution in shaping the novelty of entire fields. In addition, we find that top-ranked research institutions appear better able to manage the trade-off between novelty distance and other forms of novelty as industry publishing contribution increases. Our findings emphasize the need for policymakers in encouraging and preserving more exploratory forms of novelty in fields with substantial industry publishing, where such exploration is particularly valuable.

Research lab groups are hotspots for the education of the next generation of scientists, and making these units work as creatively as possible is essential for solving pressing issues in biology, the environment, and beyond. This article highlights 10 points that can help make labs as creative as possible. Several of these points are about setting up a creative lab culture; others are about fostering group-level creative output, some are more about encouraging creativity of individual team members, or both. While the head of a research group, the principal investigator, plays an important role, this can only be successful in healthy labs where everyone contributes.

Fostering students' problem-solving abilities and design thinking has been recognized as a crucial educational objective. In the conventional collaborative project-based learning approach, co-regulative learning (CRL) has been adopted to guide learners to plan and monitor the progress of their projects. However, without providing adequate supports or feedback to individual teams, the innovation and design quality of the project outcomes could be disappointing. In this study, a generative AI (artificial intelligence)-based co-regulative learning (GAI-CRL) approach is proposed to address this issue. Moreover, an experiment was conducted in a digital game development (DGD) to assess this approach. A total of 46 university students from two classes were recruited in this study. The experimental group adopted the GAI-CRL approach, while the control group adopted the conventional CRL (C-CRL) approach. The results showed that the GAI-CRL approach significantly enhanced students' project design performance, learning motivation, self-efficacy, and creative thinking compared to the C-CRL approach. This study serves as a reference not only for implementing DGD projects but also for applying CRL to other educational domains.

Clear definitions are essential in science, particularly in the study of abstract phenomena like creativity. Due to its inherent complexity and domain-specific nature, the study of creativity has been complicated, as evidenced by the various definitions used to describe it and the multitude of tools which claim to measure it. Surgery is a safety-critical profession where creativity could be useful in navigating unforeseen problems and circumstances, as well as developing new innovations to improve patient outcomes. To validly and reliably study creativity in surgery, a surgery-specific definition is required. We aim to develop a consensus definition of creativity in surgery, utilizing the existing creativity literature and surgeon input. The objective of this study is to generate a consensus definition of creativity in surgery. We will first conduct a focus group comprised of 4-12 highly experienced surgeons to generate knowledge on surgeons' perceptions, attitudes and beliefs about creativity in surgery, collect real-world examples of creativity in surgery, and obtain opinions on the existing definitions of creativity in the literature. The selection of focus group participants will be performed using purposive sampling of the chairs and/or chiefs of each surgical sub-specialty at our home institution. Several questions relating to creativity in surgery will be posed to the focus group, to be rated using a 7-point Likert scale and used as prompts for group discussion. We will also search MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE to find definitions of creativity in the scientific literature. Six definitions, chosen based on citation frequency and relevancy to surgery, will be presented to the focus group for ranking and discussion. Lastly, in addition to novelty and effectiveness, which are widely accepted as necessary components of creativity, the focus group will be asked to consider the necessity of other components for creativity in surgery, sourced from the scientific literature. Descriptive and thematic analyses are planned for the quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. The results of the focus group will be incorporated in the drafting of five definitions of creativity in surgery, which will be presented as initial Delphi statements in the Delphi study. For the Delphi panel, we will perform non-probability purposive sampling of surgeons and surgeon trainees at our home institution, with a minimum panel size of 12. Panellists will be asked to select the definition of creativity most relevant to surgery, with each Delphi round electronically delivered. After each round, the steering committee will meet to review the results and adjust the statements for the next round based on the feedback. A maximum of 5 rounds will be performed, or until consensus is reached (≥75% agreement). Recruitment is scheduled to begin on 1 August 2024. All focus group and panellists will be given written and verbal information on the study and provide signed, informed consent. We plan to publish the results of our study in a creativity science- or surgery-focused journal to disseminate the results of our study to relevant stakeholders. We also plan to present the results of our research at local, national, and international conferences.

Background Graduate education is the main approach to training high-level innovative elites. With the expansion of the scale of graduate education in China, it has gradually emerged that the lack of innovation ability of graduate students is recognized as the primary problem in graduate education. How to comprehensively improve the quality of postgraduate teaching has become the core task of educational reform and development. However, data about the current cultivation and development of the innovative ability of graduate students in China is limited. Methods A questionnaire survey was conducted among medical postgraduate students. Descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis methods were used to analyze the data to describe the current innovation ability in advanced medical education and potential influence factors. Results A total of 1241 medical students were surveyed, according to the results of questionnaire data analysis. The proportion of subjects who participated in the College Student’s Entrepreneurship and Innovation program or any other scientific research programs are fairly high which are 46.82% and 29.20% respectively. Most of the participants are observed with high levels of self-motivation and active learning and have good performance in creative thinking. However, only a small number of participants (16.6%) reported academic achievements such as publications. Most of the students are satisfied with the current scientific research environment and think that the current postgraduate training system is qualified for the cultivation of innovation ability, and expects the inclusion of course specialized in systemic medicine and medical informatics in the curricula. Multiple logistic regression results showed that among the factors studied, gender, medical specialties, and types of master’s degrees are associated with cognition & skills, academic performance, and creativity. Conclusions It will be important to incorporate more techniques for creating and improving creativity in the curricula of the current postgraduate education, especially for courses such as systemic medicine and informatics. Guidance in earlier school life can stimulate creativity and an early introduction to scientific research work will facilitate innovative thinking and behavior. Scientific research programs such as the National Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training for the universities of PRC have been widely implemented in the undergraduate education system throughout the country. However, the training effectiveness of the current scientific research programs is worth improving.