Rationale and Objectives
Publishing is critical for academic medicine career advancement. Rejection of manuscripts can be demoralizing. Obstacles faced by clinical faculty may include lack of time, confidence, and optimal writing practices. This study describes the development and evaluation of a peer-writing group, informed by theory and research on faculty development and writing.
Materials and Methods
Five clinical-track radiology faculty members formed a “Writers’ Circle” to promote scholarly productivity and reflection on writing practices. Members decided to work with previously rejected manuscripts. After members’ initial meeting, interactions were informal, face to face during clinical work, and online. After the first 6 months, an anonymous survey asked members about the status of articles and evaluations of the writing group.
Results
Ten previously rejected articles, at least one from each member, were submitted to the Circle. In 6 months, four manuscripts were accepted for publication, five were in active revision, and one was withdrawn. All participants (100%) characterized the program as worth their time, increasing their motivation to write, their opportunities to support scholarly productivity of colleagues, and their confidence in generating scholarship.
Conclusions
Peer-support writing groups can facilitate the pooling of expertise and the exchange of recommended writing practices. Our peer-support group increased scholarly productivity and provided a collegial approach to academic writing.
Scholarly productivity, particularly in the form of peer-reviewed publications, is critical for career advancement in academic medicine influencing decisions surrounding promotion, salary, reputation, and grant awards. However, reviews of clinical faculty in academic settings found that learning the skills and behaviors needed for academic writing represents an often-neglected aspect of professional training, despite the faculty’s rating of effective manuscript writing as one of their greatest career development needs . Obstacles to writing may include lack of time, confidence, or expertise in writing and competing clinical and administrative responsibilities .
Rejection of manuscripts submitted for publication can be demoralizing. Rejection rates by scientific journals can range from 70% to 90% in high-impact journals. Although retrospective cohort studies have found that about 50%–75% of initially rejected manuscripts eventually reached publication , authors may be ambivalent about acknowledging the reviewers’ recommendations and then investing the time and energy needed for revision. Although research exists on effective writing practices and theories of peer motivation, such research does not typically include medical faculty. This study describes the development and evaluation of efforts made by a group of senior radiology faculty in creating a Writer’s Circle to increase scholarly productivity by collegially revising previously rejected manuscripts and resubmitting them for publication. We reflected on our motivations for writing by drawing on the Self-Determination Theory, which recognizes the power of motivation for adult learners for competence, autonomy, and relatedness . We examined the impact of the peer-support Writer’s Circle on the members’ individual and collective publication productivity. We also examine the members’ reflections on the extent to which the program constituted a good use of their time, facilitated confidence, adoption of effective writing practices, and ability to accept and provide support for their colleagues.
Materials and methods
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Results
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Table 1
Coauthorships Among Faculty in the Writers’ Circle
Dr. A Dr. B Dr. C Dr. D Dr. E # Increased article coauthorships 3 1 3 2 2 # Articles with 2 + members 2007–2013 21 11 12 20 23 # Articles outside Writer’s Circle 2007–2013 8 3 12 9 13
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Table 2
Faculty Members’ Evaluation of the Writers’ Circle and Reflection on Academic Writing, N = 5
Mean Rating The Writer’s Circle … was worth my time 4.8 increased my motivation to write 4.4 provided opportunities to support scholarly productivity of my colleagues 5.0 increased my confidence in my ability to generate scholarship 4.6 increased my scholarly productivity 4.6 increased my knowledge about manuscript preparation 4.8 should continue over the next year 5.0 Following my experience in the Writer’s Circle, I would conclude that… It is important to take reviewer feedback seriously, while avoiding defensiveness 5.0 Learning from peer-review can improve my work 4.8 Reviewers should be considered as a source of collaboration among colleagues 4.8 Trust in my co-authors’ improvement efforts is more important when working on a rejected manuscript than when working on a new manuscript 4.6 Building relationships and collaborating on scholarly activities is the best way to increase scholarly productivity 5.0 Collaboration provides opportunities to act as both mentor and mentee 5.0 The best strategy is to match the manuscript to the journal and its audience 4.8 Preparing a manuscript for publication requires hard work 4.8 Revision presents an opportunity to clarify thinking 5.0 Persistence is the key to successful re-submission 5.0
The Likert-format response scale ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Discussion
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
References
1. Derish P., Maa J., Ascher N., et. al.: Enhancing the mission of academic surgery by promoting scientific writing skills. J Surg Res 2007; 140: pp. 177-183.
2. Steinert Y., McLeod P., Liben S., et. al.: Writing for publication in medical education: the benefits of a faculty development workshop and peer writing group. Med Teach 2008; 30: pp. e280-e285.
3. Cameron C., Chang S., Pagel W.: Scientific English: a program for addressing linguistic barriers of international research trainees in the United States. J Canc Educ 2011; 26: pp. 72-78.
4. Edwards K.: Peer support of scholarly activity. Acad Med 2002; 77: pp. 939.
5. Pololi L., Knight S., Dunn K.: Facilitating scholarly writing in academic medicine: lesions learned form a collaborative peer mentoring program. J Gen Intern Med 2004; 19: pp. 64-68.
6. Ray J., Berkwits M., Davidoff F.: The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medicine journal. Am J Med 2000; 109: pp. 131-135.
7. Okike K., Kocher M., Nwachukwu B., et. al.: The fate of manuscripts reject by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94: pp. e130-e145.
8. Ten Cate T., Kusurkar R., Williams G.C.: How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching learning processes in medical education. AMEE guide No. 59. Med Teach 2011; 33: pp. 961-973.
9. Kusurkar R., Croiset G., ten Cate O.: Twelve tips to stimulate intrinsic motivation in students through autonomy-supportive classroom teaching derived from self-determination theory. Med Teach 2011; 33: pp. 978-982.
10. Bordage G.: Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001; 76: pp. 889-896.
11. Ehara S., Takahashi K.: Reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to AJR by international authors. AJR 2007; 188: pp. 113-116.
12. Martínez R., Floyd R., Erichsen L.: Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: recommendations for increasing scholarly productivity. J Sch Psychol 2011; 49: pp. 691-720.
13. Venketasubramanian N., Hennerici M.: How to handle a rejection: teaching course presentation in the 21st European Stroke Conference, Lisboa, May 2012. Cerebrovasc Dis 2013; 35: pp. 209-212.
14. Eva K.: The reviewer is always right: peer review of research in Medical Education. Med Educ 2009; 43: pp. 2-4.
15. Woolley K., Barron P.: Handing manuscript rejection: insights from evidence and experience. Chest 2009; 135: pp. 573-577.
16. Steinert Y., Mann K., Centeno A., et. al.: A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education. BEME Guide No. 8. Med Teach 2006; 28: pp. 497-526.
17. Sonnad S., Goldsack J., McGowan K.: A writing group for female assistant professors. J Natl Med Assoc 2011; 103: pp. 811-815.
18. Schwellnus H., Carnahan H.: What are the key components necessary in peer coaching? A scoping review. Med Teach 2014; 36: pp. 38-46.
19. McGaghie W.: Scholarship, publication, and career advancement in health professions education: AMEE Guide No. 43. Med Teach 2009; 31: pp. 574-590.
20. Camp M., Escott B.: Authorship proliferation in the orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: pp. e44. (1–5)
21. Ferrer R., Katerndahl D.: Predictors of short-term and long-term scholarly activity by academic faculty: a departmental case study. Fam Med 2002; 34: pp. 455-461.
22. Eloy J., Svider P., Mauro K., et. al.: Impact of fellowship training on research productivity in academic otolaryngology. Laryngoscope 2012; 122: pp. 2690-2694.
23. Kempainen R., McKone E., Rubenfeld G., et. al.: Comparison of scholarly productivity of general and subspecialty clinical-educators in Internal Medicine. Teach Learn Med 2004; 16: pp. 323-328.
24. Boice R., Jones F.: Why academicians don’t write. J Higher Educ 1984; 55: pp. 567-582.
25. Hekelman F., Gilchrist V., Zyzanski S., et. al.: An educational intervention to increase faculty publication productivity. Fam Med 1995; 27: pp. 255-259.
26. Katerndahl D.: Co-evolution of departmental research collaboration and scholarly outcomes. J Eval Clin Pract 2012; 18: pp. 1241-1247.