Dataset Information

Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

As scholarship moves into the digital sphere, applicant and promotion and tenure (P&T) committee members lack formal guidance on evaluating the impact of digital scholarly work. The P&T process requires the appraisal of individual scholarly impact in comparison to scholars across institutions and disciplines. As dissemination methods evolve in the digital era, we must adapt traditional P&T processes to include emerging forms of digital scholarship.

Methods

We conducted a blended, expert consensus procedure using a nominal group process to create a consensus document at the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors Academic Assembly on April 1, 2019.

Results

We discussed consensus guidelines for evaluation and promotion of digital scholarship with the intent to develop specific, evidence-supported recommendations to P&T committees and applicants. These recommendations included the following: demonstrate scholarship criteria; provide external evidence of impact; and include digital peer-review roles. As traditional scholarship continues to evolve within the digital realm, academic medicine should adapt how that scholarship is evaluated. P&T committees in academic medicine are at the epicenter for supporting this changing paradigm in scholarship.

Conclusion

P&T committees can critically appraise the quality and impact of digital scholarship using specific, validated tools. Applicants for appointment and promotion should highlight and prepare their digital scholarship to specifically address quality, impact, breadth, and relevance. It is our goal to provide specific, timely guidance for both stakeholders to recognize the value of digital scholarship in advancing our field.

SUBMITTER: Husain A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7390542 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion.

Husain Abbas A Repanshek Zachary Z Singh Manpreet M Ankel Felix F Beck-Esmay Jennifer J Cabrera Daniel D Chan Teresa M TM Cooney Robert R Gisondi Michael M Gottlieb Michael M Khadpe Jay J Repanshek Jennifer J Mason Jessica J Papanagnou Dimitrios D Riddell Jeff J Trueger N Seth NS Zaver Fareen F Brumfield Emily E

The western journal of emergency medicine 20200708 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>As scholarship moves into the digital sphere, applicant and promotion and tenure (P&T) committee members lack formal guidance on evaluating the impact of digital scholarly work. The P&T process requires the appraisal of individual scholarly impact in comparison to scholars across institutions and disciplines. As dissemination methods evolve in the digital era, we must adapt traditional P&T processes to include emerging forms of digital scholarship.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducte ...[more]

PMID: 32726260

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionClinical departments at academic medical centers strive to deliver clinical care, provide education and training, support faculty development, and promote scholarship. These departments have experienced increasing demands to improve the quality, safety, and value of care delivery. However, many academic departments lack a sufficient number of clinical faculty members with expertise in improvement science to lead initiatives, teach, and generate scholarship. In this article, we describe the structure, activities, and early outcomes of a program within an academic department of medicine to promote scholarly improvement work.MethodsThe Department of Medicine at the University of Vermont Medical Center launched a Quality Program with three primary goals: (a) improve care delivery, (b) provide education and training, and (c) promote scholarship in improvement science. The program serves as a resource center for students, trainees and faculty, offering education and training, analytic support, consultation in design and methodology, and project management. It strives to integrate education, research, and care delivery to learn, apply evidence and improve health care.ResultsOver the first 3 years of full implementation, the Quality Program supported an average of 123 projects annually, including prospective clinical quality improvement initiatives, retrospective assessment of clinical programs and practices, and curriculum development and evaluation. The projects have yielded a total of 127 scholarly products, defined as peer-reviewed publications and abstracts, posters, and oral presentations at local, regional, and national conferences.ConclusionsThe Quality Program may serve as a practical model for promoting care delivery improvement, training, and scholarship in improvement science while advancing the goals of a learning health system at the level of an academic clinical department. Dedicated resources within such departments offer the potential to enhance care delivery while promoting academic success for faculty and trainees in improvement science.

Project description:Education scholarship continues to grow within emergency medicine (EM) and in academic medicine in general. Despite a growing interest, would-be education scholars often struggle to find adequate mentorship, research training, funding, and protected time to produce rigorous scholarship. The ways in which individual academic EM departments can support this mission remains an area in need of description.ObjectivesWe sought to describe academic EM department chairs' perceptions of education scholarship and facilitators and barriers to producing high-quality education scholarship.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study using a grounded theory-derived approach. Participants were solicited directly, and semistructured interviews were conducted via telephone. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and were analyzed by three study investigators using a coding matrix. Discrepancies in coding were resolved via in depth discussion.ResultsWe interviewed seven EM chairs from academic departments throughout North America (six in geographically diverse regions of the United States and one in western Canada). Chairs described education scholarship as lacking clearly defined and measurable outcomes, as well as methodologic rigor. They identified that education faculty within their departments need training and incentives to pursue scholarly work in a system that primarily expects teaching from educators. Chairs acknowledged a lack of access to education research expertise and mentorship within their own departments, but identified potential resources within their local medical schools and universities. They also voiced willingness to support career development opportunities and scholarly work among faculty seeking to perform education research.ConclusionsAcademic EM chairs endorse a need for methodologic training, mentorship, and access to expertise specific to education scholarship. While such resources are often rare within academic EM departments, they may exist within local universities and schools of medicine. Academic EM chairs described themselves as willing and able to support faculty who wish to pursue this type of work.

Project description:BackgroundConsensus guidelines and recommendations play an important role in fostering quality, safety, and best practices, as they represent an expert interpretation of the biomedical literature and its application to practice. However, it is unclear whether the recent collective experience of implementing telemedicine and the concurrent growth in the evidence base for teledermatology have resulted in more robust guidance.ObjectiveThe objective of this review was to describe the extent and nature of currently available guidance, defined as consensus guidelines and recommendations available for telemedicine in dermatology, with guidance defined as consensus or evidence-based guidelines, protocols, or recommendations.MethodsWe conducted a single-reviewer scoping review of the literature to assess the extent and nature of available guidance, consensus guidelines, or recommendations related to teledermatology. We limited the review to published material in English since 2013, reflecting approximately the past 10 years. We conducted the review in November and December of the year 2022.ResultsWe identified 839 potentially eligible publications, with 9 additional records identified through organizational websites. A total of 15 publications met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The guidelines focused on varied topics and populations about dermatology and skin diseases. However, the most frequent focus was general dermatology (8/15, 53%). Approximately half of the telemedicine guidance described in the publications was specific to dermatology practice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The publications were largely published in or after the year 2020 (13/15, 87%). Geographical origin spanned several different nations, including Australia, the United States, European countries, and India.ConclusionsWe found an increase in COVID-19-specific teledermatology guidance during 2020, in addition to general teledermatology guidance during the period of the study. Primary sources of general teledermatology guidance reported in the biomedical literature are the University of Queensland's Centre for Online Health and Australasian College of Dermatologists E-Health Committee, and the American Telemedicine Association. There is strong evidence of international engagement and interest. Despite the recent increase in research reports related to telemedicine, there is a relative lack of new guidance based on COVID-19 lessons and innovations. There is a need to review recent evidence and update existing recommendations. Additionally, there is a need for guidance that addresses emerging technologies.

Dataset Information

Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets