Ahmed, S.M. (Sasan M.)

Filtering

20241

Settings

Author search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.5580d198-bb91-4dba-a88a-79226cb84f8b

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Global Framework for Scientific Event: A 32-Country & 118-Expert Collaborative Effort
    (Barw Medical Editorial Team, 2024) Kakamad, F.H. (Fahmi H.); Fattah, F.H. (Fattah H.); Salih, A.M. (Abdulwahid M.); Abdalla, B.A. (Berun A.); Mohammed, S.H. (Shvan H.); Rashed, W.R. (Walid R.); Naj, A.C. (Adam C.); Fathi-Nassa, M. (Mahmoud); Flores, S. (Shaney); Wilson, A. (Alex); Caballero, A. (Andrés); Levi, T. (Timothée); Mustafa, A.M. (Ayman M.); Ahmed, S.M. (Sasan M.); Abdullah, H.O. (Hiwa O.); Rahim, H.M. (Hawbash M.); Salih, R.Q. (Rawezh Q.); Hassan, M.N. (Marwan N.); Ahmed, H.A. (Harun Amanj); Salaverría-Aliaga, R. (Ramón)
    Introduction: Despite numerous efforts to define and categorize scientific events, a consensus remains elusive, complicating the understanding and classification of such events. The current study aims to establish clear, consensus-based definitions for various types of scientific events by examining their definitions and purposes from the perspectives of scholars across different countries. Methods: The current study used a descriptive survey design to gather responses from scholars across 32 countries about their perceptions of scientific events. The sample size was determined using G*power, requiring 80 participants; 118 were recruited. Data was collected via a Google Forms survey with a 9-point Likert scale. Invitations were emailed. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was used to assess item relevance, with all items achieving a CVI above 0.78. Data analysis involved descriptive statistics, and ethical considerations regarding voluntary participation and confidentiality were observed. Results: This study validated the definitions of ten event types, each achieving a CVI above 0.78. The scientific events were categorized into conferences, symposiums, workshops, courses, summits, panels, meetings, fast-track reviews, annual reviews, and seminars. Course and panel garnered the highest level of consensus with a CVI of 0.983. Fast-track review also demonstrated a strong agreement among participants, with 82.2% expressing their concurrence with the provided definition. Conclusion: The study establishes consensus-based definitions for scientific events, enhancing standardization in the academic community and underscoring the importance of precise categorization.