A qualitative assessment of the pediatric content in pharmacy curricula adopted by pharmacy schools in Jordan

Objective: The present study aimed to explore faculty (i.e., professors of various ranks) opinions and views regarding the pediatric content in courses taught to pharmacy students in Jordan. Methods: Purposeful sampling was used to identify faculty from ten pharmacy schools. Participants were identified through their institutions’ websites. After obtaining required approvals, twelve in-depth interviews were conducted, recorded, transcribed and analyzed using NVivo 11 Software. Interviews followed a previously prepared and validated interview guide. The interview guide covered various aspects of pediatric undergraduate education and training. Results: Twelve professors (eight assistants and four associate professors) agreed to take part in the study. Qualitative analysis revealed four themes each with regard to respondents’ knowledge of the pediatric content and their students’ competency in dealing with pediatric patients. The emerging themes were: the lack of pediatric content in their current curriculum, the need for exposing students to more courses teaching pediatrics, and future aspirations to deal with this, and implications on practice. Conclusions: This study highlights the deficiency of pediatric courses in pharmacy curriculum in Jordan. Respondent believed that this will have negative implications on pediatric pharmaceutical care and treatment efficacy and safety. It was thought that adding more pediatrics topics to undergraduate curricula, offering pediatric specialized postgraduate education, and implementing pre-registration training could alleviate the current situation

Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers

The peer-review crisis is posing a risk to the scholarly peer-reviewed journal system. Journals have to ask many potential peer reviewers to obtain a minimum acceptable number of peers accepting reviewing a manuscript. Several solutions have been suggested to overcome this shortage. From reimbursing for the job, to eliminating pre- publication reviews, one cannot predict which is more dangerous for the future of scholarly publishing. And, why not acknowledging their contribution to the final version of the article published? PubMed created two categories of contributors: authors [AU] and collaborators [IR]. Why not a third category for the peer-reviewer