Example-Based Learning as a Guide for Revising a Peer-Reviewed Manuscript

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 to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Reinders J, Kropmans T, Cohen-Schotanus J. Extracurricular research experience of medical students and their scientific output after graduation. Med Educ. 2005;39:237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Rowland F. The peer-review process. Learn Publish. 2002;15(4):247–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    DeMaria A. Manuscript revision. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(25):2540–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med. 2001;76:889–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cook DA. Twelve tips for getting your manuscript published. Med Teach. 2016;38:41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    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.

  13. 13.

    Pannucci C, Wilkins E. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;126(2):619–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hensley M. Citation management software: features and futures. Ref User Serv Q. 2011;50(3):204–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Point-by-point response form. In: oph-template-form, editor. Ophthalmology: Elsevier; 2019.

  17. 17.

    Dudycha G. A qualitative study of punctuality. J Soc Psych. 1937;9(2):207–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Leopold S. Editorial: increased manuscript submissions prompt journals to make hard choices. Clin Orthop Relat Red. 2015;473(3):753–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

PBG conceived of the study; KST and DLC performed the literature review; KST, DLC, WCW, and PBG contributed to the writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul B. Greenberg.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, K.S., Cheng, D.L., Wu, W. et al. Example-Based Learning as a Guide for Revising a Peer-Reviewed Manuscript. Med.Sci.Educ. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01009-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Medical student research
  • Knowledge acquisition
  • Teaching methods
  • Example-based learning
  • Peer-review publication