RSS-Feed abonnieren
PDF herunterladen
DOI: 10.1055/a-2554-2357
Clinical Research Primer for Medical Students: Behind the Curtain, a Framework on Peer Review for Trainees
Funding None.
Abstract
Academic scholarship is an increasingly emphasized component of undergraduate medical education (UME), in particular since the USMLE Step 1 examination transitioned to a pass/fail grading scheme in 2022. Peer review is a cornerstone of academic publishing, but essentially no formal training exists at the UME or graduate medical education levels to prepare trainees for participation in the process as authors or reviewers. This clinical research primer presents an introductory set of guidelines and pearls to empower trainee participation in the peer-review process as both authors and reviewers. We outline a systematic approach to manuscript evaluation and recommend a nonlinear strategy that begins with the Abstract and Methods, followed by Figures, Tables, and Results, concluding with the Discussion. This framework includes guidelines for constructing effective reviews, from initial summary and overall recommendations to specific, actionable comments. Participation in peer review can also advance trainees' scholarly development by exposing gaps in literature that inspire new research questions and developing their ability to anticipate and address potential reviewer critiques in their own manuscript preparation. While initial implementation requires close supervision from experienced mentors, this structured approach streamlines the peer-review learning process and provides substantial benefits for all participants in academic publishing, enhancing both mentorship relationships and scholarly development.
Publikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 24. Dezember 2024
Angenommen: 18. Februar 2025
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
31. März 2025
© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Patel OU, Haynes WK, Burge KG. et al. Results of a national survey of program directors' perspectives on a pass/fail US medical licensing examination step 1. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5 (06) e2219212-e2219212
- 2 Stone C, Dogbey GY, Klenzak S, Van Fossen K, Tan B, Brannan GD. Contemporary global perspectives of medical students on research during undergraduate medical education: a systematic literature review. Med Educ Online 2018; 23 (01) 1537430
- 3 Raborn LN, Janis JE. Current views on the new United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 pass/fail format: a review of the literature. J Surg Res 2022; 274: 31-45
- 4 Lubelski D, Xiao R, Mukherjee D. et al. Improving medical student recruitment to neurosurgery. J Neurosurg 2019; 133 (03) 848-854
- 5 Amgad M, Man Kin Tsui M, Liptrott SJ, Shash E. Medical student research: an integrated mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10 (06) e0127470
- 6 Evans AR, Stephens T, Jea AH, Bauer AM, Dunn IF, Graffeo CS. Clinical research primer for medical students: overview and illustrative experiences. J Neurol Surg Rep 2024; 85 (02) e88-e95
- 7 Hardwicke TE, Goodman SN. How often do leading biomedical journals use statistical experts to evaluate statistical methods? The results of a survey. PLoS One 2020; 15 (10) e0239598
- 8 Hopewell S, Witt CM, Linde K. et al. Influence of peer review on the reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses of randomised trials. Trials 2018; 19 (01) 30