Dataset Information

An Intramural Peer-Review Concept to Support Development in Academic Medicine.

ABSTRACT: Academic medicine professionals spend their careers striving for promotion and standing in their respective institutions and the global scientific community. Publishing in high-impact journals aids in that pursuit; yet, formal coursework and training rarely emphasize scientific writing, making it difficult to gain the skills necessary to succeed. The authors implemented an intramural peer-review service in the medical school of a preeminent university to offer guidance, resources, and hands-on writing assistance at no cost. This program model bridges a gap in scientific writing instruction, boosts academic productivity, and increases opportunities to publish in higher impact journals.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01251-9.

SUBMITTER: Newcomb JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7920635 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An Intramural Peer-Review Concept to Support Development in Academic Medicine.

Newcomb Jennifer D JD Lockey Richard F RF

Medical science educator 20210302 2

Academic medicine professionals spend their careers striving for promotion and standing in their respective institutions and the global scientific community. Publishing in high-impact journals aids in that pursuit; yet, formal coursework and training rarely emphasize scientific writing, making it difficult to gain the skills necessary to succeed. The authors implemented an intramural peer-review service in the medical school of a preeminent university to offer guidance, resources, and hands-on w ...[more]

PMID: 33680568

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo review systematically the evidence about what factors influence the decision to choose or not choose a career in academic medicine.DesignA systematic review of relevant literature from 1990 to May 2005.Data sourcesSearches of The Cochrane Library, Medline (using Ovid and PubMed) from 1990 to May 2005, and EMBASE from 1990 to May 2005 were completed to identify relevant studies that explored the influential factors. Additional articles were identified from searching the bibliographies of retrieved articles.Selection of studiesWe attempted to identify studies that included residents, fellows, or staff physicians. No restrictions were placed on the study methodologies identified and all articles presenting empirical evidence were retrieved. For cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, minimum inclusion criteria were the presence of defined groups, and the ability to extract relevant data. For surveys that involved case series, minimum inclusion criteria were a description of the population, and the availability of extractable data. Minimum inclusion criteria for qualitative studies were descriptions of the sampling strategy and methods.ResultsThe search identified 251 abstracts; 25 articles were included in this review. Completion of an MD with a graduate degree or fellowship program is associated with a career in academic medicine. Of the articles identified in this review, this finding is supported by the highest quality of evidence. Similarly, the completion of research and publication of this research in medical school and residency are associated with a career in academic medicine. The desire to teach, conduct research, and the intellectual stimulation and challenge provided in academia may also persuade people to choose this career path. The influence of a role model or a mentor was reported by physicians to impact their decision making. Trainees' interest in academic medicine wanes as they progress through their residency.ConclusionsIn order to revitalize academic medicine, we must engage trainees and retain their interest throughout their training. Research opportunities for medical students, and fellowships or graduate training can meet this challenge and influence career choice. Initiatives to stimulate and maintain interest in academic medicine should be evaluated in prospective studies across multiple sites.

Project description:ImportanceDespite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes.ObjectiveTo systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank.Data sourcesMedical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used.Study selectionA PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria.Data extraction and synthesisData from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary study outcome was the h-index.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.

Dataset Information

An Intramural Peer-Review Concept to Support Development in Academic Medicine.

Supplementary information

Publications

An Intramural Peer-Review Concept to Support Development in Academic Medicine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets