Vaccination has had tremendous impact on human health. The tendency to hesitate or delay vaccination has been increasing, which has contributed to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the prevalence of childhood vaccine hesitancy and social media misconceptions in vaccine refusal among randomly selected parents from October 2019 through March 2020 in the outpatient clinics of King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The data were collected using a three-part questionnaire: the socio-demographic and economic questions, the Parents’ Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) survey, and questions concerning social media use. Based on the PACV survey tool, 37 parents (11%) scored a value > 50 and were suggested as hesitant (8% hesitant and 3% very hesitant). Overall, 288 parents (89%) scored < 50, hence deemed to not be hesitant about childhood vaccination. There was no significant association between high educational level or social media exposure with vaccine hesitancy. The most commonly used social media platform was Twitter (40%). In conclusion, we report a low prevalence of vaccine hesitancy about childhood vaccination among parents, with no significant impact of education level or social media on vaccine hesitancy. Further studies are required to replicate these findings in other regions and cities to generalize these observations for Saudi Arabia.

Background The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has published clear guidelines on the authorship of scientific papers. It is the research team’s responsibility to review and ensure those guidelines are met. Authorship ethics and practices have been examined among healthcare professionals or among particular health science students such as medical students. However, there is limited evidence to assess the knowledge of authorship roles and practices among health science students. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the knowledge of authorship guidelines practices among health science students at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A survey was developed and distributed. It covered several domains, including demographic characteristics, participant’s knowledge and attitude of authorship practices, knowledge and experience with ghost and guest authorships, and knowledge of institutional authorship policies. Moreover, a score was computed to reflect the respondents’ knowledge about authorship practices. Results Among the 321 participants who agreed to take the survey, two-thirds agreed with and supported that multi-authored articles’ credit allocation should be based on the most significant contribution and contributions to the manuscript writing. Almost 47% agreed that team relationships would influence authorship allocation. The majority of the participants were not aware of their institutional research and publication policies. Also, around 50% of participants were not aware of guest or ghost authorships. Finally, the knowledge score about authorship credits, allocation, contribution, order, and guidelines was higher among students who were assigned as corresponding authors and those who were aware of their institutional authorship guidelines and policies. Conclusion In conclusion, our findings suggest that health science students may have limited knowledge about authorship guidelines and unethical behaviors involved in a scientific publication. Universities and research centers should make more efforts to raise the awareness of health science students regarding authorship guidelines while ensuring that they comply with those guidelines.

In the realm of education, feedback from peers and teachers is of critical importance. The rapid growth of electronic feedback (EF) has led to various innovations in feedback, particularly for teachers&rsquo; EF (TEF) in the context of English as a foreign language (EFL). This study contributes to the literature on feedback by examining how teachers and students in EFL writing classes were influenced by TEF offered synchronously via online class discussion, and TEF offered asynchronously via Blackboard. This study focuses on both teachers&rsquo; perceptions (elicited from interviews) and students&rsquo; perceptions (elicited from surveys) regarding their respective experiences of TEF. The study uncovered three main findings; most of the TEF addressed the content, organization, and language structure of the students&rsquo; EFL writing, and the teachers adjusted their TEF according to students&rsquo; needs and course objectives; teachers and students considered TEF to be effective and accessible.