Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A Scoping Review of Peer Support Writing Groups in Academic Medicine as a Valuable Tool for Physician-Scientists in the Publish or Perish Era

  • Review
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In designing and implementing a peer support writing group for junior researchers at our home institution, we saw an opportunity to advance the understanding of this intervention as a valuable tool for future physician-scientists. We, therefore, performed a scoping literature review of the available literature on peer support writing groups in clinical disciplines to learn what has been described about this topic. We paid specific attention to the characteristics, implementation, and impact of these groups on the academic development of medical/healthcare scientists. We performed a scoping literature review following the conceptual framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We included studies describing the characteristics, implementation, and impact/effects of peer support writing groups in clinical disciplines. All the information extracted was summarized descriptively to chart the available literature on peer support writing groups in clinical disciplines. We identified a total of 369 articles, of which six were finally included. The absolute number of papers published increased considerably after the participation in the peer support writing groups. The subjective comments of the participating individuals highlighted the positive effects of these groups on the academic productivity of attendees. Available information shows a significant increase in the absolute number of publications and a positive perception between individuals participating in peer support writing groups. Stakeholders should implement this strategy in their home academic institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brandon C, Jamadar D, Girish G, Dong Q, Morag Y, Mullan P. Peer support of a faculty “writers” circle increases confidence and productivity in generating scholarship. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(4):534–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.12.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Duracinsky M, Lalanne C, Rous L, Dara AF, Baudoin L, Pellet C, et al. Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):96. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0371-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. El Tantawi M, Sadaf S, AlHumaid J. Using gamification to develop academic writing skills in dental undergraduate students. Eur J Dent Educ. 2018;22(1):15–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fleming LW, Malinowski SS, Fleming JW, Brown MA, Davis CS, Hogan S. The impact of participation in a research/writing group on scholarly pursuits by non-tenure track clinical faculty. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2017;9(3):486–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Grzybowski SCW, Bates J, Calam B, Alred J, Martin RE, Andrew R, et al. A physician peer support writing group. Fam Med. 2003;35(3):195–201.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Johnston J, Wilson S, Rix E, Pit SW. Publish or perish: strategies to help rural early career researchers increase publication output. Rural Remote Health. 2014;14(3):2870.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Paiva CE, Araujo RLC, Paiva BSR, de Pádua Souza C, Cárcano FM, Costa MM, et al. What are the personal and professional characteristics that distinguish the researchers who publish in high- and low-impact journals? A multi-national web-based survey. Ecancermedicalscience. 2017;11:718. https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2017.718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pierson DJ. The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respir Care. 2004;49(10):1246 LP–1252 http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/49/10/1246.short Accessed Dec 17 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Quinn CT, Rush AJ. Writing and publishing your research findings. J Investig Med. 2009;57(5):634–9. https://doi.org/10.2310/JIM.0b013e3181a39164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rao Z. Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT J. 2007;61(2):100–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sabouni A, Chaar A, Bdaiwi Y, Masrani A, Abolaban H, Alahdab F, et al. An online academic writing and publishing skills course: help Syrians find their voice. Avicenna J Med. 2017;7(3):103–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/ajm.AJM_204_16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sonnad SS, Goldsack J, McGowan KL. A writing group for female assistant professors. J Natl Med Assoc. 2011;103(9):811–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0027-9684(15)30434-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Steinert Y, McLeod PJ, Liben S, Snell L, Steinert Y, McLeod PJ, et al. Writing for publication in medical education: the benefits of a faculty development workshop and peer writing group. Med Teach. 2008;30(8):e280–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590802337120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article is dedicated to the memory of Daniela Rojas-Munoz, whose image is forever imprinted in the first author's mind.We would like to thank Dr. Lydia Maurer for proofreading assistance with this article. We acknowledge that only authors who made substantial intellectual contributions were listed as authors. RMN and FA conceived the idea. RMN and JER performed the literature search and selected the studies for inclusion. LEM and AG extracted the data. All authors provided input to the first draft during brainstorming sessions. All authors wrote the report, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and approved the final version for submission.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramiro Manzano-Nunez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

Not applicable

Informed Consent

Not applicable

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manzano-Nunez, R., Ariza, F., Rengifo, J.E. et al. A Scoping Review of Peer Support Writing Groups in Academic Medicine as a Valuable Tool for Physician-Scientists in the Publish or Perish Era. Med.Sci.Educ. 30, 1313–1319 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-00983-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-00983-4

Keywords

Navigation