A method for the madness: An international survey of health professions education authors' journal choice

INTRODUCTION: Scholarship is a key activity in health professions education (HPE). When disseminating scholarly work, how one selects the journal to which they submit is often argued to be a key determinant of subsequent success. To draw more evidence-based recommendations in this regard, we surveyed successful scholars working in HPE regarding their perspectives and experiences with journal selection. METHODS: We conducted an international survey of HPE scholars, investigating their decisions regarding journal choice. Corresponding authors were identified from a sample of 4000 papers published in 2019 and 2020. They were invited via email with up to four reminders. We describe their experience and use principle component and regression analyses to identify factors associated with successful acceptance. RESULTS: In total, 863 responses were received (24.7% response rate), 691 of which were included in our analyses. Two thirds of respondents had their manuscripts accepted at their first-choice journal with revisions required in 98% of cases. We identified six priority factors when choosing journals. In descending order of importance, they were: fit, impact, editorial reputation, speed of dissemination, breadth of dissemination, and guidance from others. Authors who prioritised fit higher and who selected a journal earlier were more likely to have their manuscripts accepted at their first-choice journal. DISCUSSION: Based on our results we make three recommendations for authors when writing manuscripts: do not be disheartened by a revise decision, consider journal choice early in the research process, and use the fit between your manuscript and the journal as the main factor driving journal choice

Twelve tips for optimising learning for postgraduate doctors in the operating theatre

Learning in the operating theatre forms a critical part of postgraduate medical education. Postgraduate doctors present a diverse cohort of learners with a wide range of learning needs that will vary by their level of experience and curriculum requirements. With evidence of both trainee dissatisfaction with the theatre learning experience and reduced time spent in the operating theatre, which has been exacerbated by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is vital that every visit to the operating theatre is used as a learning opportunity. We have devised 12 tips aimed at both learners and surgeons to optimise learning in the operating theatre, set out into four domains: educational context, preparation, learning in theatre, feedback and reflection. These tips have been created by a process of literature review and acknowledgment of established learning theory, with further discussion amongst surgical trainees, senior surgical faculty, surgical educators and medical education faculty

Developments in medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 63

Background The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020. This rapid systematic review synthesised published reports of medical educational developments in response to the pandemic, considering descriptions of interventions, evaluation data and lessons learned. Methods The authors systematically searched four online databases and hand searched MedEdPublish up to 24 May 2020. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias for included articles. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. A descriptive synthesis and outcomes were reported. Results Forty-nine articles were included. The majority were from North America, Asia and Europe. Sixteen studies described Kirkpatrick’s outcomes, with one study describing levels 1–3. A few papers were of exceptional quality, though the risk of bias framework generally revealed capricious reporting of underpinning theory, resources, setting, educational methods, and content. Key developments were pivoting educational delivery from classroom-based learning to virtual spaces, replacing clinical placement based learning with alternate approaches, and supporting direct patient contact with mitigated risk. Training for treating patients with COVID-19, service reconfiguration, assessment, well-being, faculty development, and admissions were all addressed, with the latter categories receiving the least attention. Conclusions This review highlights several areas of educational response in the immediate aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and identifies a few articles of exceptional quality that can serve as models for future developments and educational reporting. There was often a lack of practical detail to support the educational community in enactment of novel interventions, as well as limited evaluation data. However, the range of options deployed offers much guidance for the medical education community moving forward and there was an indication that outcome data and greater detail will be reported in the future