Publishing Venues for Education Scholarship: A Needs Assessment. (25th May 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jordan, Jaime; Jones, David; Williams, Dustin; Druck, Jeffrey
• Editors: Kuehl, Damon R.
• Is Part Of: Academic emergency medicine. Volume 23:Number 6(2016)
• Page Start: 731
• Page End: 735
• Publication Date: 2016-05-25
• Subjects: Emergency medicine -- Periodicals; 616.02505
• DOI: 10.1111/acem.13003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1069-6563

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Education research is a developing field. It is unknown if there are adequate venues for scholarship distribution. The objectives of this study were to identify types of education scholarship produced, where this type of scholarship is published, barriers to achieving publication for education scholarship, and perceptions of adequacy of publication venues. Methods: Study participants were emergency medicine (EM) education and academic leaders who completed an online survey consisting of multiple‐choice, completion, and 10‐point Likert scale items. Results: A total of 45 of 59 (76.3%) subjects completed the survey. A total of 33 of 45 (73.3%) respondents had published education scholarship. Most (29/44, 65.9%) felt that there were inadequate venues for publishing education scholarship. Of those who publish education scholarship, most (30/33; 90.9%) publish either less than one or one to two peer‐reviewed products per year, but collaborate with others more frequently (less than one per year, 7/33, 21.2%; one or two per year, 17/33, 51.5%; three or four per year, 7/33, 21.2%; five or more per year, 2/33, 6.1%). The most frequently published scholarship were curricular innovations and original research, with mean ratings of 5.61 and 5.21, respectively, on a 10‐point Likert scale. Peer‐reviewed print journal was the most frequently utilized venue, with a mean rating of 6.21. Other venues (mean rating) include peer‐reviewed online journal (4.0), MedEd Portal (3.58), free open‐access education (3.47), newsletter (3.0), and curricular toolbox (2.55). The most common rejection reason was "not suitable for this journal/venue, " with a mean rating of 5.33. Other reasons include research methodology (4.07), small sample size (4.17), single‐site study (4.28), and misunderstanding of project purpose (4.10). Respondents believed that additional education supplements in journals would be most helpful in increasing successful publication, with a mean rating of 8.31. Other helpful items included a central online repository of venues that publish education scholarship, online training in education research design/methodology, and an online networking site of education researchers to promote collaboration, with mean ratings of 6.88, 6.75, and 6.28, respectively. Conclusion: The majority of our sampling of EM education and academic leaders publish education scholarship. There is a perceived lack of venues for this work. Multiple barriers as well as potential strategies for success have been identified. This information may inform interventions to support the dissemination of education scholarship.