Advice for authors from the editors of Perspectives on Medical Education : Getting your research published

The Inside Scoop: What We Learnt About Getting into Academic Publishing During Our Editorial Internship

The world of publication can seem intimidating and closed to the newcomer. How then does one even begin to get a foot in the door? In this paper, the authors draw from the literature and their recent lived experience as editorial interns to consider this challenge under the theme of access, and how it overlaps with the various components of academic publication. The main three components of the publication 'machine' are discussed in this article, authoring, reviewing, and editing. These are preceded by the first, and arguably foundational, interaction with academic journal publishing-reading. Without reading articles across different journals, and even in different disciplines, understanding the breadth of scholarship and its purpose is impossible. The subsequent components of authoring, reviewing, and editing, which are all enhanced by ongoing familiarity with current literature through further reading, are considered in further detail in the remainder of this article, with practical advice provided as to how to gain access and experience in each of these areas, for example, writing non-research article manuscripts, engaging in collaborative peer review, and applying for editorial opportunities (with perseverance) when the opportunity presents itself. Medical education publication can seem daunting and closed to entry-level academics. This article is written to dispel this view, and challenges the notion that the world of publication is reserved for experts only. On the contrary, newcomers to the field are essential for academic publications to retain relevance, dynamism, and innovation particularly in the face of the changing landscape of medical education.

Facilitators and Barriers for Young Medical Doctors Writing Their First Manuscript for Publication

Although scientific publication is often mandatory in medical professions, writing the first research article for publication is challenging, especially as medical curricula have only a minor focus on scientific writing. The aim was therefore to identify facilitators and barriers experienced by medical doctors writing their first scientific article for publication. An explorative inductive approach made use of semi-structured interviews for collecting data until saturation. Data were analyzed with systematic text condensation. Several barriers were identified: (a) writing in general; (b) writing in English; (c) dealing with content, structure, and presentation; and (d) navigating in the author group. Good supervision in the initial writing phase was a facilitating factor. Medical doctors requested a course in which they could work on their own articles and give feedback to fellow students. They valued skilled lecturers and individual supervision, and they wanted to learn about author instructions, how to present text correctly, and how to sell their core message. Their goal was to create a useful end product and to obtain European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) points. The facilitators and barriers that medical doctors experience when writing their first scientific article for publication and their course requests should be reflected in the learning objectives and content of future courses.

Peer-Review and Rejection Causes in Submitting Original Medical Manuscripts

The purpose of specialized medical journals is to accurately disseminate the results of new research. The peer-review process is crucial for journals to be able to fulfill this purpose. Although the peer-review determines whether scientific papers are accepted or rejected for publication, for many authors is a not well known process in its entirety. Many journals have focused on educating their audience about how and what is assessed during peer-review, nevertheless, the rate of manuscripts rejected because of easily-avoidable causes related to this, remains high. In this paper, we describe the process that specialized journals use to assess original medical manuscripts and list the main causes of paper rejection. Practicing physicians and medical students who wish to report their research results stand to benefit if they can identify and early avoid on the issues that most often arise during the peer-review process.

The utility of failure: a taxonomy for research and scholarship

INTRODUCTION

Health professions education (HPE) research and scholarship utilizes a range of methodologies, traditions, and disciplines. Many conducting scholarship in HPE may not have had the opportunity to consider the value of a well-designed but failed scholarly project, benefitted from role-modelling of the value of failure, nor have engaged with the common nature of failure in research and scholarship.

METHODS

Drawing on key concepts from philosophy of science, this piece describes the necessity and benefit of failure in research and scholarship, presents a taxonomy of failure relevant to HPE research, and applies this taxonomy to works published in the Perspectives on Medical Education failures/surprises series.

RESULTS

I propose three forms of failure relevant to HPE scholarship: innovation-driven, discovery-oriented, and serendipitous failure. Innovation-driven failure was the most commonly represented type of failure in the failures/surprises section, and discovery-oriented the least common.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering failure in research and scholarship, four conclusions are drawn. First, failure is integral to research and scholarship-it is how theories are refined, discoveries are made, and innovations are developed. Second, we must purposefully engage with the opportunities that failure provide-understanding why a particular well-designed project failed is an opportunity for further insight. Third, we must engage publicly with failure in order to better communicate and role model the complexities of executing scholarship or innovating in HPE. Fourth, in order to make failure truly an opportunity for growth, we must, as a community, humanize and normalize failure as part of a productive scholarly approach.

Tips for Improving the Writing and Reporting Quality of Systematic, Scoping, and Narrative Reviews

The evidence base in health professions education continues to accumulate at an unprecedented rate. Summaries of evidence in the form of scoping, systematic and narrative reviews are also increasingly common. Unfortunately, many submissions go unpublished and for reasons that may be irreversible post-peer review. The goal of this commentary is to offer insights to review authors for improving the likelihood of publication success. These tips will not guarantee success; however, insights address common errors authors make along the continuum of review production that result in either requests for major revision or rejection.