Abstract
Publishing medical research is an increasingly competitive process for junior researchers. One critical step is revising a manuscript with editorial team feedback. This article’s purpose is to utilize a novel example-based learning approach to provide trainees and junior faculty with ten steps on how to successfully navigate the manuscript peer-review process. To this end, each step in the proposed guide is correlated with the authors’ most recent publication experience, with key manuscript and editor response letter versions made available through an open-access digital repository.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Reinders J, Kropmans T, Cohen-Schotanus J. Extracurricular research experience of medical students and their scientific output after graduation. Med Educ. 2005;39:237.
Chang Y, Ramnanan C. A review of literature on medical students and scholarly research: experiences, attitudes, and outcomes. Acad Med. 2015;90(8):1162–73.
Jacobs C, Cross P. The value of medical student research: the experience at Stanford University School of Medicine. Med Educ. 1995;29(5):342–6.
Rowland F. The peer-review process. Learn Publish. 2002;15(4):247–58.
DeMaria A. Manuscript revision. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(25):2540–1.
Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med. 2001;76:889–96.
Cook DA. Twelve tips for getting your manuscript published. Med Teach. 2016;38:41–50.
Coverdale J, Roberts L, Balon R, Beresin E. Writing for academia: getting your research into print: AMEE guide no. 74. Med Teach. 2013;35:e926–e34.
Azer S, Dupras D, Azer S. Writing for publication in medical education in high impact journals. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014;18(19):2966–81.
Misak A, Marusic M, Marusic A. Manuscript editing as a way of teaching academic writing: experience from a small scientific journal. J Second Lang Writ. 2005;14(2):122–31.
Tang K, Cheng D, Mi E, Greenberg P. Augmented reality in medical education: a systematic review. Can Med Educ J. 2020;11(1):e81–96.
Tang K, Cheng D, Mi E, Greenberg P. Tracking manuscript versions of “augmented reality in medical education: a systematic review". Brown Digital Repository: Brown University Library; 2019. https://doi.org/10.26300/qzwh-9g46.
Pannucci C, Wilkins E. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;126(2):619–25.
Hensley M. Citation management software: features and futures. Ref User Serv Q. 2011;50(3):204–8.
Cheng D, Greenberg P, Borton D. Advances in retinal prosthetic research: a systematic review of engineering and clinical characteristics of current prosthetic initiatives. Curr Eye Res. 2016;42(3):334–47.
Point-by-point response form. In: oph-template-form, editor. Ophthalmology: Elsevier; 2019.
Dudycha G. A qualitative study of punctuality. J Soc Psych. 1937;9(2):207–17.
Leopold S. Editorial: increased manuscript submissions prompt journals to make hard choices. Clin Orthop Relat Red. 2015;473(3):753–5.
Larsen P, von Ins M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation index. Scientometrics. 2010;84(3):575–603.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the editors and reviewers of the Canadian Medical Education Journal for their support and feedback; this project would not have been possible without them. The authors also thank the staff at the Brown University Library who made the manuscript versions available in the Brown Digital Repository.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the United States (US) Department of Veterans Affairs or the US government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
PBG conceived of the study; KST and DLC performed the literature review; KST, DLC, WCW, and PBG contributed to the writing.
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Accepted for virtual presentation at the Association for Medical Education in Europe International Conference (September 7–9, 2020 in Glasgow, Scotland)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tang, K.S., Cheng, D.L., Wu, WC. et al. Example-Based Learning as a Guide for Revising a Peer-Reviewed Manuscript. Med.Sci.Educ. 30, 1263–1266 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01009-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01009-9