<i> <scp>BJD</scp> </i> Medical Student Editors: reaching out to undergraduates in a rapidly evolving world of digital dermatology publishing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Globally, many medical students now aspire to pursue a career in dermatology. The U.K. is no exception – according to Health Education England, in 2017 dermatology was the most competitive specialty in terms of obtaining a national training number.1 As a consequence, medical undergraduates are thinking ahead and looking for ways to become involved in the specialty, as early as the first few years of their degree. Medical students have unique needs in the context of dermatology. They are relatively new to a specialty that has been historically under‐represented and not taught or assessed uniformly within the undergraduate curriculum.2,3,4 There is a positive correlation between exposure to dermatology as a medical student and self‐confidence in managing skin conditions as a junior doctor.5 Increasing recognition from the British Association of Dermatologists has led to publication of dermatology learning outcomes for medical students.6 As well as gaining valuable clinical experience in dermatology, students seek opportunities to enhance their CVs and wish to contribute to publication‐worthy dermatology articles. To bridge the gap between medical student needs and limited opportunities to publish in dermatology, the BJD appointed its first Medical Student Editor in 2017. A second student joined the team in 2018. The posts are 2 years in length, allowing the second‐year post holder to guide the first‐year editor, providing near‐peer mentorship. Working alongside two BJD Editorial Trainees and the wider editorial team, their role is varied, including contributing to the BJD journal club and Image Gallery and the journal's social media presence. The first author of every BJD original article is now asked to produce a set of journal club slides.7 Medical Student Editors are involved in reviewing the slides before publication to ensure high‐quality presentations. These slides can then be accessed by BJD users. Many medical schools have their own ‘DermSoc’ for undergraduates. Critical appraisal is a key skill for every doctor, and DermSoc journal clubs using BJD slides are intended to develop this skill at both an undergraduate and postgraduate level. This initiative also adds value for authors, whose research is more likely to be widely discussed and cited. Looking forward, the aim is for BJD journal club slides to become an essential resource for dermatology journal clubs worldwide. BJD Medical Student Editors also review submissions to the BJD's Image Gallery, refining captions and ensuring that they accurately and concisely describe the clinical case or research image. Recently, Image Gallery submissions have become interactive by posting on Figure1 (http://www.figure1.com; Twitter: @figure1). Intended for healthcare professionals, medical students included, Figure1 provides a web‐based platform to disseminate clinical cases and promote discussion via a linked, moderated forum that adds educational value to the cases. Recent Image Gallery Figure1 posts have received more than 35 000 views each. Along with their peer group, BJD Medical Student Editors have grown up in the digital age; they are adept in the use of social media and play an important role in expanding this facet of the journal's activity. The BJD regularly shares content via Facebook and Twitter (@BrJDermatol) and recently launched its own YouTube channel.8 Over 140 uploads of author videos are now available on both the BJD YouTube channel and the new BJD website (http://www.bjdonline.com). As part of the BJD Medical Student Editor role, training in critical appraisal is provided by the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, in particular from Dr Karen Harman and Professor Kim Thomas. Medical Student Editors attend the BJD editorial team training day, actively contributing to journal development. They also attend the subsequent annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, live tweeting from the event. Creation of BJD Medical Student Editor posts is part of the journal's commitment to reach out to all of its key stakeholders. The posts ensure representation for the next generation of dermatologists and contribute to their training. The role has proven beneficial to both parties. It offers insight into the world of medical publishing and a chance for post holders to enhance their skills in academic writing, critical appraisal, publication ethics and social media. The journal gains from the insight provided by the student editors into how to connect with the dermatologists of the future, including the added dimension of social media. Reflecting the BJD's global reach, the U.K.‐based undergraduate Medical Student Editors and postgraduate Editorial Trainees will be joined by postgraduate BJD trainees from across the globe. A total of six will be appointed, spread across the continents, and by the time you read this editorial, the first three will be in their posts. None to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,049 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,018 | 0,019 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,040 | 0,029 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».