Skip to main content Accessibility help

CAEP 2016 Academic Symposium: A Writer’s Guide to Key Steps in Producing Quality Medical Education Scholarship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2017

Teresa M. Chan
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, Program for Education Research and Development, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
Brent Thoma
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK
Andrew Koch Hall
Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON
Aleisha Murnaghan
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON
Daniel K. Ting
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Carly Hagel
Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON
Kristen Weersink
Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON
Paola Camorlinga
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Jill McEwen
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Farhan Bhanji
Centre for Medical Education, McGill University, Montreal, QC.
Jonathan Sherbino
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, Program for Education Research and Development, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
E-mail address:


A key skill for successful clinician educators is the effective dissemination of scholarly innovations and research. Although there are many ways to disseminate scholarship, the most accepted and rewarded form of educational scholarship is publication in peer-reviewed journals.

This paper provides direction for emergency medicine (EM) educators interested in publishing their scholarship via traditional peer-reviewed avenues. It builds upon four literature reviews that aggregated recommendations for writing and publishing high-quality quantitative and qualitative research, innovations, and reviews. Based on the findings from these literature reviews, the recommendations were prioritized for importance and relevance to novice clinician educators by a broad community of medical educators.

The top items from the expert vetting process were presented to the 2016 Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Academic Symposium Consensus Conference on Education Scholarship. This community of EM educators identified the highest yield recommendations for junior medical education scholars. This manuscript elaborates upon the top recommendations identified through this consensus-building process.


L’une des principales clés du succès parmi les médecins cliniciens enseignants est la diffusion efficace des travaux scientifiques touchant la recherche ou l’innovation. Certes, il existe de nombreux moyens de diffuser des travaux scientifiques, mais la forme la plus courante et la plus prestigieuse est la publication de travaux de recherche en éducation dans des revues à comité de lecture.

Les auteurs offrent, dans l’article, une voie à suivre aux médecins enseignants en médecine d’urgence (MU), désireux de publier leurs travaux scientifiques par la voie classique des articles évalués par les pairs. Le contenu repose sur quatre examens de la documentation qui ont permis de dégager des recommandations sur la rédaction et la publication de travaux de qualité concernant la recherche quantitative ou qualitative, les rapports sur l’innovation ou les revues systématiques. Les recommandations, tirées des examens de la documentation, ont été classées par ordre de priorité en fonction de l’importance et de la pertinence pour les nouveaux cliniciens enseignants, par un large éventail de médecins enseignants.

Les principaux éléments extraits de cet examen détaillé, réalisé par des experts, ont été présentés durant la conférence consensuelle sur les travaux scientifiques en enseignement, tenue dans le cadre du Symposium sur les affaires universitaires de l’ACMU de 2016. La communauté de cliniciens enseignants en MU a dégagé les recommandations qui leur semblaient les plus utiles aux jeunes chercheurs en enseignement de la médecine. L’article fait donc état des principales recommandations relevées tout le long de ce processus consensuel d’édification.

2016 Academic Section Proceedings
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2017 


Emergency medicine (EM) is committed to medical education.Reference Gordon 1 Previous work by the Academic Section of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) demonstrates that our discipline is involved in teaching at every Canadian medical school.Reference Stiell, Artz and Lang 2 However, the volume of our specialty’s contribution to education scholarship is not proportional. Improved dissemination is vital to advance the field because it allows educators to build on each other’s work.Reference Sherbino 3

In 2013, Bhanji et al. created a “how-to” guide for EM education scholarship.Reference Bhanji, Cheng and Frank 4 This primer served as a launching point to inspire clinical teachers interested in engaging in scholarship. The dissemination of EM-relevant education research and scholarship has many merits, ranging from personal satisfaction and academic recognitionReference Bhanji, Cheng and Frank 4 to improved learning environments and enhanced patient care. This dissemination may galvanize a national community of practice, allowing clinician educators to learn from each other’s successes and failures.

Unfortunately, the quality of Canadian medical education scholarship has lagged behind that of our clinical research.Reference Sherbino 3 Novice academics, in particular, have had difficulty publishing within medical education: rejection rates from medical education journals can be 87% or higher, and there are not as many venues or guides to publication available to medical education researchers.Reference Norman 5 Fortunately, studies have shown that many flaws leading to manuscript rejection are preventable or fixable,Reference Bordage 6 suggesting that, through guidance and support, it may be possible to increase the dissemination of medical education research.

The purpose of this 2016 CAEP Academic Symposium consensus conference was to highlight key steps to elevate the level of Canadian EM education scholarship by providing high-yield recommendations to education scholars attempting to disseminate their research via peer-reviewed publication. Herein, we identify the key quality markers for quantitative research, qualitative research, innovation reports, reviews, and knowledge synthesis studies within medical education.


In 2016, the Academic Section of CAEP held its second consensus conference on education. In preparation for this consensus conference, a series of four structured literature reviews were conducted to identify markers of high-quality education publications.

Search methodology

We conducted a series of scoping reviews to aggregate advice from the literature about how to best write four types of education scholarship manuscript: quantitative studies,Reference Thoma, Camorlinga and Chan 7 qualitative studies,Reference Chan, Ting and Hall 8 innovation reports,Reference Hall, Hagel and Chan 9 and reviews/synthesis works.Reference Murnaghan, Weersink and Thoma 10 These reviews resulted in distinct, genre-specific lists of quality markers related to these types of education scholarship. The number of items identified by each group ranged from 30 for innovation reportsReference Hall, Hagel and Chan 9 to 157 for quantitative research.Reference Thoma, Camorlinga and Chan 7 It was recognized that the high number of recommendations limited their practical application. A consensus process was used to identify key items.

External validation of quality indicator lists

To triangulate our findings and triage the essential markers of quality, an online survey for each category of scholarship was conducted. Four surveys (one for each topic) were published on weekly from April 4, 2016 to May 1, 2016 and emailed to the corresponding authors of key papers found in the literature reviews. We also attempted to crowd-source the expert opinions of relevant EM and medical education virtual communities of practice using social media.Reference Zhao and Zhu 11 , Reference Thoma, Paddock and Purdy 12 Specifically, the surveys were promoted on Twitter using the hashtags #MedEd (Medical Education) and #FOAMed (Free Open Access Medical education) and on the CanadiEM Facebook page. The survey also allowed participants to submit additional quality elements not identified by the thematic analysis using free text. Demographic information on survey participants was captured.

This survey allowed us to incorporate the expertise of medical educators unable to attend the consensus conference. Survey participants were asked to identify the top 25 quality markers by endorsing whether they thought each of the items should be included in the final list. Appendix A (see supplementary material) includes the surveys and demographics of survey respondents. Appendix B provides the top 25 quality markers for each category of medical education scholarship identified by the survey participants.

Consensus conference final ranking

Poster presentations containing the top 25 quality markers for the four categories of education scholarship were provided to the 2016 CAEP Academic Symposium on Education Scholarship Consensus Conference participants. In the event of a tie for the 25th item, all items tied for that position were included. Each item was listed along with the percentage of votes that it received in the online consensus process.

Using a previously published methodology for achieving a group consensus,Reference Rodriguez, Siegelman and Leone 13 - Reference Chan, Wallner and Swoboda 19 participants reviewed each of the four posters in a small group and indicated the top five most important elements in each by placing a sticker next to them. Participants were also asked to add any additional relevant items not represented within the list for each category. The key items for each category were presented to the reassembled large group of consensus conference participants for endorsement or amendment during the conference proceedings. This process was facilitated by the authors of this report.

Recommendation review

Following the consensus conference, selected recommendations for each of the four categories were reviewed. Although there were significant disparities between the consensus recommendations, four common themes were identified by the authors, which were represented in nearly every category. These recommendations were explicitly identified and expanded upon as the top four items of importance for the dissemination of all types of medical education research by the consensus conference.


Figure 1 outlines the four thematic elements identified by the consensus conference as being important to the success of those seeking to publish their education scholarship. Figure 2 outlines the top key category-specific recommendations in each area. Further clarification of these items can be found in Appendix C (see supplementary material).

Figure 1 Key Elements of Publishable Medical Education Scholarship

Figure 2 Key Genre-based Recommendations for Medical Education Scholarship


In the Canadian EM education community, there is an increasing desire to encourage teachers and educators to generate scholarship.Reference Sherbino 3 , Reference Bhanji, Cheng and Frank 4 , Reference Sherbino, van Melle and Bandiera 22 The Education Working Group within CAEP’s Academic Section has sought to encourage the scholarly dissemination of work so that EM educators from across the country can improve their teaching techniques and educational systems. The first series of papers from the 2013 Academic Symposium 1) helped define education scholarship,Reference Sherbino, van Melle and Bandiera 22 2) described how we could support careers of educators,Reference Bandiera, Leblanc and Regehr 23 and 3) provided beginners with a guide on how to begin developing a scholarly track record.Reference Bhanji, Cheng and Frank 4 We sought to build upon this previous work by assisting educators in generating high quality education scholarship.

Because many novice educators find the traditional peer review publication processes daunting, we sought to isolate the most common stumbling blocks and provide advice to overcome them. Our proceedings during this academic symposium allowed us to view the literature guiding education scholarship through the two lenses of most of the participants: the experienced educators who have mentored novice educators through the scholarly process, and the novice or junior educator who is entering into this field for the first time. By merging these two perspectives, we have generated four overall recommendations (see Figure 1) and multiple genre-specific recommendations (see Figure 2, with clarification in Appendix C).

Recommendation 1: Respect related work and show that the research or innovation adds to the field

It is critical for education scholars to conduct a thorough, up-to-date, and critical literature search to ground their work in the existing literature.Reference Bhanji, Cheng and Frank 4 , Reference Bordage 6 , Reference McGee and Kanter 24 - Reference Kitto 26 Per Bordage, incorporating a “…thoughtful, focused, up-to-date review of the literature…”Reference Bordage 6 was one of the top five reasons for recommending acceptance of a manuscript.Reference Bordage 6 Failing to cite recent literature or citing only local examples can be a red flag for editors.Reference Monrouxe, Haidet and Ginsburg 27 Moreover, once links to previous work have been demonstrated, authors need to articulate how an innovation is novel or fills a void in the current literature.Reference Brien, Harris and Beckman 28 - Reference Sullivan, Simpson and Cook 30

Recommendation 2: Use existing conceptual frameworks and theories to inform and guide scholarship

Conceptual frameworks are ways of thinking about a study or a dilemma, a lens through which one can examine the complexities of educational or social phenomenon.Reference Bordage 31 These frameworks can act to “illuminate and magnify”Reference Schwartz, Pappas and Bashook 32 various aspects of education scholarship. The lack of a conceptual or theoretical framework led to the rejection of manuscripts submitted to major educational journals 62.2% of the time.Reference Bordage 6 An exception to this rule may be in the development of a new theory via quantitative methods such as grounded theory. Even then, however, it is important to ensure that links to previous similar work are made.Reference Charmaz 33

Recommendation 3: State clearly the goal(s) or question(s) of the manuscript, ensuring that they are timely, relevant, prevalent, and/or necessary

Having an important goal is key to successful publicationReference Yarris and Deiorio 34 and a top reason that reviewers used to explain why they recommended acceptance of papers.Reference Bordage 6 The academic community values clarity of writing.Reference Cooper and Endacott 20 , Reference Stacy and Spencer 21 Editors,Reference Monrouxe, Haidet and Ginsburg 27 reviewers,Reference Monrouxe, Haidet and Ginsburg 27 and especially readersReference Sullivan, Simpson and Cook 30 benefit from clear articulation of the intentions underpinning scholarship.Reference Yarris, Juve and Coates 35

Recommendation 4: Respect category-specific conventions when submitting for publication

The various categories of medical education scholarship have different conventions. When writing a paper, it is important that authors adhere to the language and style specific to each of these categories. Figure 2 more fully identifies key recommendations that must be considered for different categories of education scholarship, and these recommendations are more fully clarified within Appendix C.

With regards to all types of scholarship, it is crucial to explain why a particular study is important, and more specifically, to whom it is important. Many reviewers and editors will remind authors to answer two central questions: “So what?” and “Who cares?”Reference Bordage 6 The “So what?” question ensures that you have clearly made a case for why your research question is novel and interesting to the field. At times, a study may answer a new question or add a new innovative spin to previous work. Other times, a study may replicate or contradict previous findings or theories.

Junior authors should seek the mentorship of those more well-versed in an area for help when writing their manuscripts. An experienced educator may know of work that is linked conceptually but may not have been studied in the exact same context (e.g., work in intensive care unit education may be relevant to an author who is seeking to study emergency consultations skills). Linking to previous literature is of the utmost importance when reporting new findings.Reference Bhanji, Cheng and Frank 4 , Reference Bordage 6 , Reference McGee and Kanter 24 - Reference Kitto 26

Completing a thorough review of the literature is advisable, but this preparatory reading will not always lead to a publishable manuscript.Reference Murnaghan, Weersink and Thoma 10 Reviews of previous literature may not coalesce into meta-analyses or systematic reviews because the existing literature is too heterogeneous to answer a defined question.Reference Murnaghan, Weersink and Thoma 10 Clearly defined questions for synthesis works are important, but the aggregation of data must first be justifiable, as we point out in our genre-specific recommendations (see Figure 2).

Finally, we would like to advise educators that works on scholarly innovation are important; however, not every educational endeavour will be innovative. Innovation reporting requires the same amount of rigour as other forms of scholarship, with the same necessity to build upon previous work and add new ideas.Reference Hall, Hagel and Chan 9 Careful thought should be placed into whether the work of scholarship is best disseminated as an innovation report, or whether it is best delivered to other educators as a package of peer-reviewed teaching materials via new scholarly portalsReference Sherbino 3 , Reference Bhanji, Cheng and Frank 4 (such as MedEdPortal,,, etc.).


The main limitation of our study was that the demographic make-up of consensus conference participants was not optimal or selective. An open call for participation was made to all emergency physician members of CAEP, potentially limiting a broader inclusion of EM educators. Also, the demographics of participants indicated significant representation from very early career EM scholars (students, residents, and junior educators) who may lack significant experience in medical education scholarship. Thus, the endorsement of key steps may be influenced by limited or inexperienced consensus.


Education scholarship is imperative to advance EM education. To effectively publish and disseminate education scholarship, it is important to prevent fatal flaws.Reference Bhanji, Cheng and Frank 4 , Reference Bordage 6 , Reference McGee and Kanter 24 - Reference Kitto 26 , Reference McGaghie 36 , Reference Cook 37 Clinician educators are a prime source of innovations and research that can advance the field of medical education, and we hope that this document and its associated reviewsReference Thoma, Camorlinga and Chan 7 - Reference Murnaghan, Weersink and Thoma 10 will help foster continued education scholarship amongst the ranks of EM educators. This guide serves as a primer for both novice education scholars and clinician educators to assist in elevating EM education scholarship by attending to key steps in the publication process.

Competing interests: None declared.


To view supplementary material for this article, please visit


1. Gordon, JA. Reflections on the consensus process: a leadership role for emergency medicine in educational scholarship and practice across health care. Acad Emerg Med 2012;19(12):1333-1335, 10.1111/acem.12020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Stiell, IG, Artz, JD, Lang, ES, et al. An environmental scan of academic emergency medicine at the 17 Canadian medical schools: why does this matter to emergency physicians? CJEM 2017;19(1):39-46, 10.1017/cem.2016.346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Sherbino, J. Education scholarship: the next step for our specialty. CJEM 2010;12(4):347-348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Bhanji, F, Cheng, A, Frank, JR, et al. Education scholarship in emergency medicine part 3: a “how-to” guide. CJEM 2014;16(Suppl 1):S13-S18, 10.2310/8000.2014.141456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Norman, G. Data dredging, salami-slicing, and other successful strategies to ensure rejection: twelve tips on how to not get your paper published. Adv Heal Sci Educ 2014;19(1):1-5, 10.1007/s10459-014-9494-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Bordage, G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001;76(9):889-896, 10.1097/00001888-200109000-00010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Thoma, B, Camorlinga, P, Chan, TM, et al. A writer’s guide to education scholarship: quantitative methodologies for medical education research (part 1). CJEM 2017; 10.1017/cem.2017.17. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Chan, TM, Ting, DK, Hall, AK, et al. A writer’s guide to education scholarship: qualitative education scholarship (part 2). CJEM 2017; 10.1017/cem.2017.17. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hall, AK, Hagel, C, Chan, TM, et al. A writer’s guide to education scholarship in emergency medicine: education innovations (part 3). CJEM 2017; 10.1017/cem.2017.28. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Murnaghan, A, Weersink, K, Thoma, B, et al. A writer’s guide to education scholarship in emergency medicine: systematic reviews and the scholarship of integration (part 4). CJEM 2017; 10.1017/cem.2017.29. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Zhao, Y, Zhu, Q. Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: current status and future direction. Inf Syst Front 2014;16(3):417-434, 10.1007/s10796-012-9350-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Thoma, B, Paddock, M, Purdy, E, et al. Leveraging a virtual community of practice to participate in a survey-based study: a description of the METRIQ study methodology. AEM Educ Train 2016; 10.1002/aet2.10013.Google Scholar
13. Rodriguez, E, Siegelman, J, Leone, K, et al. Assessing professionalism: summary of the working group on assessment of observable learner performance. Acad Emerg Med 2012;19(12):1372-1378, 10.1111/acem.12031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Salzman, DH, Franzen, DS, Leone, KA, et al. Assessing practice-based learning and improvement. Acad Emerg Med 2012;19(12):1403-1410, 10.1111/acem.12026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Goyal, N, Aldeen, A, Leone, K, et al. Assessing medical knowledge of emergency medicine residents. Acad Emerg Med 2012;19(12):1360-1365, 10.1111/acem.12033.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Chen, EH, O’Sullivan, PS, Pfennig, CL, et al. Assessing systems-based practice. Acad Emerg Med 2012;19(12):1366-1371, 10.1111/acem.12024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Takayesu, JK, Kulstad, C, Wallenstein, J, et al. Assessing patient care: summary of the breakout group on assessment of observable learner performance. Acad Emerg Med 2012;19(12):1379-1389, 10.1111/acem.12038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Kessler, CS, Leone, KA. The current state of core competency assessment in emergency medicine and a future research agenda: recommendations of the working group on assessment of observable learner performance. Acad Emerg Med 2012;19(12):1354-1359, 10.1111/acem.12023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Chan, TM, Wallner, C, Swoboda, TK, et al. Assessing interpersonal and communication skills in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2012;19(12):1390-1402, 10.1111/acem.12030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Cooper, S, Endacott, R. Generic qualitative research: a design for qualitative research in emergency care? Emerg Med J 2007;24(12):816-819, 10.1136/emj.2007.050641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Stacy, R, Spencer, J. Assessing the evidence in qualitative medical education research. Med Educ 2000;34(7):498-500.Google ScholarPubMed
22. Sherbino, J, van Melle, E, Bandiera, G, et al. Education scholarship in emergency medicine part 1: innovating and improving teaching and learning. CJEM 2014;15(Suppl 1):S1-S5, 10.2310/8000.2014.141454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Bandiera, G, Leblanc, C, Regehr, G, et al. Education scholarship in emergency medicine part 2: supporting and developing scholars. CJEM 2014;16(Suppl 1):S6-S12, 10.2310/8000.2014.141455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. McGee, JB, Kanter, SL. How we develop and sustain innovation in medical education technology: keys to success. Med Teach 2011;33:279-285, 10.3109/0142159X.2011.540264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Gordon, M, Gibbs, T. STORIES statement: publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis. BMC Med 2014;12(1):143, 10.1186/s12916-014-0143-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Kitto, S. Quality in qualitative research. Med J Aust 2008;188(4):243-246, 10.4135/9781848608191.Google ScholarPubMed
27. Monrouxe, L, Haidet, P, Ginsburg, S, et al. Good advice from the deputy editors of Medical Education. Med Educ 2012;46(9):828-829, 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04318.x.Google Scholar
28. Brien, BCO, Harris, IB, Beckman, TJ, et al. Standards for reporting qualitative research. Acad Med 2014;89(9):1245-1251, 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388.Google Scholar
29. Cook, DA, Bowen, JL, Gerrity, MS, et al. Proposed standards for medical education submissions to the Journal of General Internal Medicine. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23(7):908-913, 10.1007/s11606-008-0676-z.Google Scholar
30. Sullivan, GM, Simpson, D, Cook, DA, et al. Redefining quality in medical education research: a consumer’s view. J Grad Med Educ 2014;6(3):424-429, 10.4300/JGME-D-14-00339.1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Bordage, G. Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Med Educ 2009;43(4):312-319, 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03295.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Schwartz, A, Pappas, C, Bashook, PG, et al. Conceptual frameworks in the study of duty hours changes in graduate medical education: a review. Acad Med 2011;86(1):18-29, 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ff81dd.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Charmaz, K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage; 2006.Google Scholar
34. Yarris, LM, Deiorio, NM. Education research: a primer for educators in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2011;18:S27-S35, 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01189.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Yarris, LM, Juve, AM, Coates, WC, et al. Critical appraisal of emergency medicine education research: the best publications of 2014. Acad Emerg Med 2015;22(11):1327-1336, 10.1111/acem.12801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. McGaghie, WC. Scholarship, publication, and career advancement in health professions education: AMEE guide no. 43. Med Teach 2009;31(7):574-590, 10.1080/01421590903050366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Cook, DA. Getting started in medical education scholarship. Keio J Med 2010;59(3):96-103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Yarris, LM, Gruppen, LD, Hamstra, SJ, et al. Overcoming barriers to addressing education problems with research design: a panel discussion. Acad Emerg Med 2012;19(12):1344-1349, 10.1111/acem.12025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Norman, G, Eva, KW. Quantitative research methods in medical education. Underst Med Educ 2010;21:301-322, 10.1002/9781444320282.ch21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Yarris, LM, Deiorio, NM. Education research: a primer for educators in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2011;18(Suppl 2):S27-S35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Cook, DA, Levinson, AJ, Garside, S. Method and reporting quality in health professions education research: a systematic review. Med Educ 2011;45(3):227-238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42. Horn, C, Plazas, SB, Coverdale, JH, et al. Educational research questions and study design 65. AcadPsychiatry 2009;33(1545-7230 [Electronic]):261-267.Google Scholar
43. Azer, SA. Research in medical education is not just on telling a story. Saudi Med J 2010;31(4):456-458.Google ScholarPubMed
44. Boet, S, Sharma, S, Goldman, J, et al. Review article: medical education research: an overview of methods. Can J Anaesth 2012;59(2):159-170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Stone, N. Evaluating interprofessional education: the tautological need for interdisciplinary approaches. J Interprof Care 2006;20(3):260-275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Cook, DA. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis in medical education: what role do they play? Med Teach 2012;34(6):468-473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Ringsted, C, Hodges, B, Scherpbier, A. “The research compass”: an introduction to research in medical education: AMEE guide no. 56. Med Teach 2011;33(9):695-709, 10.3109/0142159X.2011.595436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Cook, DA, Levinson, AJ, Garside, S. Method and reporting quality in health professions education research: a systematic review. Med Educ 2011;45(3):227-238, 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03890.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49. Coverdale, JH, Roberts, LW, Balon, R, et al. Writing for academia: getting your research into print: AMEE guide no. 74. Med Teach 2013;35(2):e926-e934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50. Walsh, K. Research into cost and value in medical education: can we make findings more generalisable? Commentary. Ann Ist Super Sanita 2014;50(1):4-5.Google ScholarPubMed
51. Hanson, JL, Balmer, DF, Giardino, AP. Qualitative research methods for medical educators. Acad Pediatr 2006;11(5):375-386, 10.1016/j.acap.2011.05.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52. Boet, S, Sharma, S, Goldman, J, et al. Medical education research: an overview of methods. Can J Anesth 2012;59:159-170, 10.1007/s12630-011-9635-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53. Kuper, A, Reeves, S, Levinson, W. An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008;337:a288, 10.1136/bmj.a288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54. Glassick, CE. Boyer’s expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards of assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Acad Med 2000;75(9):877-880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55. Sharma, R, Gordon, M, Dharamsi, S, et al. Systematic reviews in medical education: a practical approach: AMEE guide 94. Med Teach 2015;37(2):108-124, 10.3109/0142159X.2014.970996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56. Conn, VS, Isaramalai, S, Rath, S, et al. Beyond MEDLINE for literature searches. J Nurs Scholarsh 2003;35(2):177-182, 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2003.00177.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57. Cook, DA, West, CP. Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach. Med Educ 2012;46(10):943-952, 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04328.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58. Kelly, KD, Travers, A, Dorgan, M, et al. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med 2001;38(5):518-526, 10.1067/mem.2001.115881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59. Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (reprinted from Annals of Internal Medicine). Phys Ther 2009;89(9):873-880, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.Google Scholar
60. Reeves, S, Koppel, I, Barr, H, et al. Twelve tips for undertaking a systematic review. Med Teach 2002;24(4):358-363, 10.1080/01421590220145707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61. Hammick, M, Dornan, T, Steinert, Y. BEME guide: conducting a best evidence systematic review. Part 1: from idea to data coding. BEME guide no. 13. Med Teach 2010;32(1):3-15, 10.3109/01421590903414245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62. Colquhoun, HL, Levac, D, O’Brien, KK, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67(12):1291-1294, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63. Wong, G, Greenhalgh, T, Westhorp, G, et al. Development of methodological guidance, publication standards and training materials for realist and meta-narrative reviews: the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses – Evolving Standards) project. Heal Serv Deliv Res 2014;2(30):1-252, 10.3310/hsdr02300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64. Masic, I. How to search, write, prepare and publish the scientific papers in the biomedical journals. Acta Inform Medica 2011;19(2):68-79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
65. Blanchard, RD, Nagler, A, Artino, AR. Harvest the low-hanging fruit: strategies for submitting educational innovations for publication. J Grad Med Educ 2015;7(3):318-322, 10.4300/JGME-D-15-00228.1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66. Kanter, SL. Toward better descriptions of innovations. Acad Med 2008;83(8):703-704, 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181838a2c.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67. Barrows, HS. Innovations without appropriate assessment are of limited usefulness. Teach Learn Med 2008;20(4):287, 10.1080/10401330802382148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chan supplementary material S1

Online Appendix

File 117 KB

Chan supplementary material S2

Online Appendix

File 182 KB

Chan supplementary material S3

Online Appendix

File 152 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 73
Total number of PDF views: 321 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 15th May 2017 - 28th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-p5tlp Total loading time: 0.701 Render date: 2021-01-28T01:19:25.421Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "1", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

CAEP 2016 Academic Symposium: A Writer’s Guide to Key Steps in Producing Quality Medical Education Scholarship
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

CAEP 2016 Academic Symposium: A Writer’s Guide to Key Steps in Producing Quality Medical Education Scholarship
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

CAEP 2016 Academic Symposium: A Writer’s Guide to Key Steps in Producing Quality Medical Education Scholarship
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *