ArticleMedical science educator2020
A Scoping Review of Peer Support Writing Groups in Academic Medicine as a Valuable Tool for Physician-Scientists in the Publish or Perish Era.
Article in Medical science educator, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Male allyship to advance women's leadership in global health academia: A qualitative study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- The write of passage: Overcoming barriers to academic writing during emergency medicine fellowship training.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- The Inside Scoop: What We Learnt About Getting into Academic Publishing During Our Editorial Internship.Medical science educator · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In designing and implementing a peer support writing group for junior researchers at our home institution, we saw an opportunity to advance the understanding of this intervention as a valuable tool for future physician-scientists. We, therefore, performed a scoping literature review of the available literature on peer support writing groups in clinical disciplines to learn what has been described about this topic. We paid specific attention to the characteristics, implementation, and impact of these groups on the academic development of medical/healthcare scientists. We performed a scoping literature review following the conceptual framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. We included studies describing the characteristics, implementation, and impact/effects of peer support writing groups in clinical disciplines. All the information extracted was summarized descriptively to chart the available literature on peer support writing groups in clinical disciplines. We identified a total of 369 articles, of which six were finally included. The absolute number of papers published increased considerably after the participation in the peer support writing groups. The subjective comments of the participating individuals highlighted the positive effects of these groups on the academic productivity of attendees. Available information shows a significant increase in the absolute number of publications and a positive perception between individuals participating in peer support writing groups. Stakeholders should implement this strategy in their home academic institutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.