ReviewAEM education and training2025
From submission to publication: A practical guide to peer review publication for medical educators.
Review in AEM education and training, 2025. 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.
- Educator's Blueprint: Seven Strategies for Turning Peer Review Into Scholarly Growth.AEM education and training · 2026Article
- Educator's Blueprint: Optimizing the Resident Research Experience.AEM education and training · 2026Article
- From submission to publication: A practical guide to peer review publication for medical educators.AEM education and training · 2025Review
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
While medical educators are publishing more than ever, many barriers still exist, causing some to feel disheartened. Ongoing strategies are desirable to support educators who are facing challenges when submitting and revising their scholarly manuscripts to journals. Increasing publication rates can enhance an educator's promotion and tenure progress and career satisfaction and aid in the establishment of a community of practice. On a broader scale, increased publication encourages a diversity of voices contributing to and advancing the field of medical knowledge. In this article, we present a guide for those looking to engage more deeply in medical education (MedEd) research and scholarship. First, we describe the difference between MedEd research (which seeks to develop and/or answer a research question and expand general knowledge) and other forms of scholarship (which may include, but are not limited to, curricular innovations, infographics, educational downloads, commentaries, editorials, reviews, last pages, instruments, case scenarios, and instructional toolboxes). Next, we discuss an eight-step process to prepare for publication: (1) formulate the idea, (2) implement the project, (3) select the appropriate journal, (4) write the paper, (5) submit the manuscript, (6) receive journal feedback, (7) revise the manuscript, and (8) resubmit the manuscript. It is the hope that with practice and mentorship, and the help of this guide, medical educators can more successfully publish their work moving forward.
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.