When will I get my paper back? A replication study of publication timelines for health professions education research

E-learning Interventions for Quality Improvement Continuing Medical Education-A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Improving health care quality and patient safety are top priorities for the medical field. Robust continuing medical education (CME) programs represent major interventions to effectively teach quality improvement (QI) principles to practicing physicians. In particular, eLearning, a term describing online and distance learning interventions using digital tools, provides a means for CME interventions to reach broader audiences. Although there has been a focus on CME addressing QI, no knowledge synthesis has focused specifically on eLearning interventions. The purpose of this review was to examine the current landscape of eLearning interventions in QI-focused CME.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review using the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley as revised by Levac. We searched five databases and identified 2467 prospective publications, which two authors independently screened for inclusion. From each included article, two authors independently extracted data on the instructional modalities and QI tools used and met regularly to achieve consensus.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included. Most studies used blended instruction (n = 12) rather than solely eLearning interventions. Salient findings included the importance of coaching from QI experts and institutional support for planning and implementing eLearning interventions. Lack of protected time and resources for participants were identified as barriers to participation in CME activities, with small practices being disproportionately affected.

DISCUSSION

Partnerships between CME developers and sponsoring organizations are vital in creating sustainable eLearning interventions for QI-focused CME. Remote coaching can be an effective strategy to provide ongoing support to geographically separated learners.

Preprints in Health Professions Education: Raising Awareness and Shifting Culture

A preprint is a version of a research manuscript posted by its authors to a preprint server before peer review. Preprints are associated with a variety of benefits, including the ability to rapidly communicate research, the opportunity for researchers to receive feedback and raise awareness of their research, and broad and unrestricted access. For early-career researchers, preprints also provide a mechanism for demonstrating research progress and productivity without the lengthy timelines of traditional journal publishing. Despite these benefits, few health professions education (HPE) research articles are deposited as preprints, suggesting that preprinting is not currently integrated into HPE culture. In this article, the authors describe preprints, their benefits and related risks, and the potential barriers that hamper their widespread use within HPE. In particular, the authors propose the barriers of discordant messaging and the lack of formal and informal education on how to deposit, critically appraise, and use preprints. To mitigate these barriers, several recommendations are proposed to facilitate preprints in becoming an accepted and encouraged component of HPE culture, allowing the field to take full advantage of this evolving form of research dissemination.

Bibliometrics: Methods for studying academic publishing

Bibliometrics is the study of academic publishing that uses statistics to describe publishing trends and to highlight relationships between published works. Likened to epidemiology, researchers seek to answer questions about a field based on data about publications (e.g., authors, topics, funding) in the same way that an epidemiologist queries patient data to understand the health of a population. In this Eye Opener, the authors introduce bibliometrics and define its key terminology and concepts, including relational and evaluative bibliometrics. Readers are introduced to common bibliometric methods and their related strengths and weaknesses. The authors provide examples of bibliometrics applied in health professions education and propose potential future research directions. Health professions educators are consumers of bibliometric reports and can adopt its methodologies for future studies.

Joining the meta-research movement: A bibliometric case study of the journal Perspectives on Medical Education

PURPOSE

To conduct a bibliometric case study of the journal Perspectives on Medical Education (PME) to provide insights into the journal's inner workings and to "take stock" of where PME is today, where it has been, and where it might go.

METHODS

Data, including bibliographic metadata, reviewer and author details, and downloads, were collected for manuscripts submitted to and published in PME from the journal's Editorial Manager and Web of Science. Gender of authors and reviewers was predicted using Genderize.io. To visualize and analyze collaboration patterns, citation relationships and term co-occurrence social network analyses (SNA) were conducted. VOSviewer was used to visualize the social network maps.

RESULTS

Between 2012-2019 PME received, on average, 260 manuscripts annually (range = 73-402). Submissions were received from authors in 81 countries with the majority in the United States (US), United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. PME published 518 manuscripts with authors based in 31 countries, the majority being in the Netherlands, US, and Canada. PME articles were downloaded 717,613 times (mean per document: 1388). In total 1201 (55% women) unique peer reviewers were invited and 649 (57% women) completed reviews; 1227 (49% women) unique authors published in PME. SNA revealed that PME authors were quite collaborative, with most authoring articles with others and only a minority (n = 57) acting as single authors.

DISCUSSION

This case study provides a glimpse into PME and offers evidence for PME's next steps. In the future, PME is committed to growing the journal thoughtfully; diversifying and educating editorial teams, authors, and reviewers, and liberating and sharing journal data.

Peer Review Metrics and their influence on the Journal Impact

The manuscript processing timeline, a necessary facet of the publishing process, varies from journal to journal, and its influence on the journal impact needs to be studied. The current research looks into the correlation between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ (submission to first editorial decision; submission to first post-review decision and submission to accept) and the ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor; 5-year Impact Factor; Immediacy Index; Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score). The data related to ‘Peer Review Metrics’ (submission to first editorial decision; submission to first post-review decision and submission to accept) and ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor; 5-year Impact Factor; Immediacy Index; Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score) were downloaded from the ‘Nature Research’ journals website https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/about/journal-metrics . Accordingly, correlations were drawn between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ and the ‘Journal Impact Data’. If the time from ‘submission to first editorial decision’ decreases, the ‘Journal Impact Data’ increases and vice versa. However, an increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to first editorial decision’ does not affect the ‘Eigenfactor Score’ of the journal and vice versa. An increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to first post-review decision’ does not affect any ‘Journal Impact Data’ and vice versa. If the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ increases, the ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor, 5-year Impact Factor, Immediacy Index and Article Influence Score) also increases, and if the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ decreases, so will the ‘Journal Impact Data’. However, an increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ does not affect the ‘Eigenfactor Score’ of the journal and vice versa. The study will act as a ready reference tool for the scholars to select the most appropriate submitting platforms for their scholarly endeavours. Furthermore, the performance and evaluative indicators responsible for a journal’s overall research performance can also be understood from a micro-analytical view, which will help the researchers select appropriate journals for their future scholarly submissions. Lengthy publication timelines are a big problem for the researchers because they are not able to get the credit for their research on time. Since the study validates a relationship between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ and ‘Journal Impact Data’, the findings will be of great help in making an appropriate journal’s choice. The study can be an eye opener for the journal administrators who vocalise a speed-up publication process by enhancing certain areas of publication timeline. The study is the first of its kind that correlates the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ of the journals and the ‘Journal Impact Data’. The study’s findings are limited to the data retrieved from the ‘Nature Research’ journals and cannot be generalised to the full score of journals. The study can be extended across other publishers to generalise the findings. Even the articles’ early access availability concerning ‘Peer Review Metrics’ of the journals and the ‘Journal Impact Data’ can be studied.

Finding Success in Scholarship: How Physician Assistant Educators Can Overcome Barriers to Publication

ABSTRACT

Publishing scholarly work offers several benefits for physician assistants (PAs) in faculty roles. It allows them to establish expertise, disseminate knowledge, and advance their careers. However, due to a variety of barriers, PAs are often unable to build a portfolio of scholarly articles. They frequently lack the time, training, experience, and resources to complete large academic projects and navigate the complex publication process. This article offers 6 key strategies to help PAs in academic settings pursue scholarly work and achieve publication.

Article numbers as a leading indicator of publication time

Aims: in health professions education (HPE), the use of statistics is commonly associated with somewhat larger samples, whereas smaller samples or single subjects (i.e., N = 1) are usually labelled as needing some kind of ‘qualitative’ approach. However, statistical methods can be very useful in small samples and for individual subjects as well, especially where we have time series of repeated measurements of the same outcome variable(s) of interest. The aim of this article is twofold: to demonstrate an example of a cross-correlation function for single subjects in a HPE context and to suggest a few settings in HPE where this cross-correlation function can be of use.Method: the example uses data from a recent Open Access publication on among others article numbers and publication time in a number of major HPE journals to examine the relation between the number of articles published and median publication time over time in the zero-cost Open-Source statistical program R version 4.0.5.Results: as to be expected, the number of articles published appears somewhat of a leading indicator of publication time: both number of articles in year ‘y’ and number of articles in year ‘y minus 1’ correlate > 0.6 with median publication time in year ‘y’, while correlations of other time differences (e.g., number of articles in year ‘y minus 2’ and median publication time in year ‘y’, or median publication time in year ‘y’ and number of articles in year ‘y plus 1’) are substantially smaller.Conclusion: in line with recent literature, this article demonstrates that the cross-correlation function can be used in the context of small samples and single subjects. While the example focusses on article numbers and publication times, it can equally be applied in for example studying relations between knowledge, skills and attitude in individuals, or relations between behaviors of individuals working in pairs or small groups.

Time from submission to publication varied widely for biomedical journals: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Fast dissemination of research is important for improving treatments and thus benefitting patients, caregivers, and researchers. However, getting scientific papers published may take a long time. The editorial handling time can be delayed by several processes both before and after acceptance of the paper. The aim of this study was to systematically review the editorial handling time of biomedical peer-reviewed literature (i.e. time from submission to publication).

METHODS

The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020196238). PubMed and EMBASE were searched systematically on 29 May 2020. We included publications on the timespan between submission and publication for accepted articles published in biomedical journals.

RESULTS

Of the 4197 unique studies identified in the search, 69 were included in the systematic review. The mean timespan from submission to publication varied from 91 to 639 days, while the median timespan varied from 70 to 558 days. Submission to acceptance and acceptance to publication timespans showed similar disparity with means ranging from 50 to 276 and 11 to 362 days, respectively. Data were too statistically heterogeneous to perform meta-analyses.

CONCLUSION

Editorial handling times of journals varied widely from a few months to almost two years, which delays the availability of new evidence. The editorial handling time did not differ between submission-to-acceptance-time and acceptance-to-publication-time. Examining differences in editorial processes between journals with long and short editorial handling times may help uncover, which processes are frequent causes of delay and thereby where to improve.