ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Introduction: There is a lack of information about cardiac surgery training and professional practice in Latin American (LATAM) countries. This study is the first comparative analysis of cardiac surgical training and professional practice across LATAM and provides the fundamentals for future academic projects of the Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES). Methods: International survey-based comparative analysis of the training and professional practice of cardiac surgeons across LATAM. Trainees (residents/fellows) and staf (graduated) surgeons from LATAM countries were included. Results: A total of 289 respondents (staf surgeons N=221 [76.5%]; residents/fellows N=68 [23.5%]) from 18 different countries participated in the survey. Most surgeons (N=92 [45.3%]) reported being unsatisfied with their salaries. Most respondents (N=181 [62.6%]) stated that it was difficult to obtain a leadership position, and 149 (73.8%) stated that it was difficult to find a job after completing training. Only half of the trainee respondents (N=32 [47.1%]) reported that their program had all resident spots occupied. Only 22.1% (N=15) of residents/fellows were satisfied with their training programs. The majority (N=205 [70.9%]) of respondents would choose cardiac surgery as their specialty again. Most surgeons (N=129 [63.9%]) and residents/fellows (N=52 [76.5%]) indicated that the establishment of a LATAM cardiac surgery board examination would be beneficial. Conclusion: Modernization and standardization of training, as well as greater access to opportunities, may be required in LATAM to increase professional satisfaction of cardiac surgeons and to reduce disparities in the specialty. Such changes may enhance the regional response to the dynamic challenges in the feld.
ABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction: Open access (OA) publishing often requires article processing charges (APCs). While OA provides opportunities for broader readership, authors able to afford APCs are more commonly associated with well-funded, high-income country institutions, skewing knowledge dissemination. Here, we evaluate publishing models, OA practices, and APCs in cardiology and cardiac surgery. Methods: The InCites Journal Citation Reports 2019 directory by Clarivate Analytics was searched for "Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems" journals. Sister journals of included journals were identified. All journals were categorized as predominantly cardiology or cardiac surgery. Publishing models, APCs, and APC waivers were defined for all journals. Results: One hundred sixty-one journals were identified (139 cardiology, 22 cardiac surgery). APCs ranged from $244 to $5,000 ($244-5,000 cardiology; $383-3,300 cardiac surgery), with mean $2,911±891 and median $3,000 (interquartile range [IQR]: $2,500-3,425) across 139 journals with non-zero available APCs ($2,970±890, median $3,000, IQR: $2,573-3,450, cardiology; $2,491±799, median $2,740, IQR: $2,300-3,000, cardiac surgery). Average APCs were $3,307±566 and median $3,250 (IQR: $3,000-3,500) for hybrid journals ($3,344±583, median $3,260, IQR: $3,000-3,690, cardiology; $2,983±221, median $2,975, IQR: $2,780-3,149, cardiac surgery) and $1,997±832 and median $2,100 (IQR: $1,404-2,538) for fully OA journals ($2,039±843, median $2,100, IQR: $1,419-2,604, cardiology; $1,788±805, median $2,000, IQR: $1,475-2,345, cardiac surgery). Waivers were available for 51 (86.4%) fully OA and 37 (37.4%) hybrid journals. Seventeen journals were fully OA without APCs, one journal did not yet release APCs, and four journals were subscription-only. Conclusion: OA publishing is common in cardiology and cardiac surgery with substantial APCs. Waivers remain limited, posing barriers for unfunded and lesser-funded researchers.