ArticleMedical science educator2025
Medical Student Comfort with Academic Publishing: A Single-Institution Experience with a Supplemental Interactive Lecture.
Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Since the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 shifted to a Pass/Fail scoring system, increased emphasis has been placed on research output. Medical students choosing to pursue competitive residencies have contributed to research at a higher rate than ever before. Despite this, many medical students may feel uncomfortable leading the effort to widely communicate the results of a project. Methods: A quantitative survey-based study was performed to investigate the medical student research landscape at the University of Arizona College of Medicine - Tucson (UACOM-T). Our team surveyed the medical student body on their familiarity and comfort with the publishing process, invited the full student body to attend an optional student-led interactive session on the topic, and surveyed attendees of this lecture to assess for any changes in comfort or attitudes. Results: A total of 71 medical students completed the pre-session survey, 24 medical students attended the lecture, and 23 medical students completed the post-session survey. Most survey respondents were actively involved in research while in medical school, equal to their involvement prior to matriculation into medical school. Most survey respondents were not comfortable with academic publishing or identifying a predatory journal prior to attending the supplemental educational lecture on academic publishing, which increased their comfort on these topics. Conclusions: In summary, most study participants were actively involved in research and were at baseline not comfortable with the academic publishing process. Attending a supplemental student-led interactive lecture on academic publishing increased medical student attendees' comfort in being able to identify a fake or predatory journal and increased their overall comfort in the academic publishing process. Similar interactive lectures can help bridge the gap in medical students' understanding of topics in academic publishing. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02278-4.
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.