Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Chair of the Research in Medical Education Section of the AAMC's Group on Educational Affairs, I am pleased to write a brief foreword to this document, “Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts.” It was conceived of by Addeane Caelleigh, editor of Academic Medicine, and its development was the first task of the journal's Research Advisory Committee, formed to advise the editor on research-related issues. The project was undertaken in partnership with the Research in Medical Education Section, and co-chaired by Georges Bordage and Addeane Caelleigh. They were joined by a team of medical education researchers and Academic Medicine editors, who worked together intensively for two years to produce this document. The completion of this guide for reviewers of research manuscripts represents an important achievement in both content and process. In content, the document brings together a synthesis of best practices, expressed in review criteria that encompass all types of research and scholarly writing in medical education and that, in addition, are applicable to a much wider spectrum of research manuscripts in clinical medicine and the social sciences. It will, as envisioned by the co-chairs, serve as a valuable resource for reviewers, clarifying for them the complex interacting nature of publication decisions and their contribution to that process. The presentation of criteria will enhance the consistency and quality of manuscript reviews across reviewers, and may also improve the consistency of reviews for individual reviewers. The document will also be a valuable resource to authors, providing them a framework, or scaffold, that will assist them as they build both their studies and their reports, and will guide them in seeking advice appropriately. Through its guidance for both reviewers and authors, the document will ultimately contribute to enhanced scholarship, certainly in the field of medical education and hopefully in other fields as well. We in the medical education community will find this review-criteria document to be very timely. It complements our attempts to move medical education toward more evidence-based practice. Fields of study are advanced in different ways and by a variety of forces; currently, there are influences for change from both the researchers and the practitioners of medical education. Medical education has become increasingly challenging in the face of rising societal expectations and the changed and changing systems of health care. Our challenge is to systematically build a discipline to support us in the crucial task of preparing physicians. This presentation of criteria will be an important resource to help us achieve that goal. The report is also a significant achievement of process. It represents the dedication and commitment of experienced researchers to improve the field. Further, it is the result of collegial work toward a joint goal of individuals with different perspectives and approaches to research, who discussed, shared, and listened to each others' viewpoints to find the underlying commonalities that will build the discipline of medical education. Congratulations and sincere thanks to all who contributed to this project. Task Force Members Georges Bordage, MD, PhD Professor and director of graduate studies Department of Medical Education University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, Illinois Addeane S. Caelleigh Editor, Academic Medicine Association of American Medical Colleges Washington, D.C. Ann Steinecke, PhD Staff editor, Academic Medicine Association of American Medical Colleges Washington, D.C. Carole J. Bland, PhD Professor, vice chair for research and faculty affairs, and research fellowship director Department of Family Practice and Community Health University of Minnesota School of Medicine Minneapolis, Minnesota Sonia J. S. Crandall, PhD Associate professor and director of faculty development Department of Family and Community Medicine Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem, North Carolina William C. McGaghie, PhD Professor of medical education and professor of preventive medicine Northwestern University Medical School Chicago, Illinois Louis A. Pangaro, MD Professor and vice chairman for educational programs Department of Medicine Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Bethesda, Maryland Gary Penn Former staff editor, Academic Medicine Association of American Medical Colleges Washington, D.C. Glenn Regehr, PhD Associate professor, Department of Psychiatry, and associate director, Centre for Research in Education at the University Health Network University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine Toronto, ON, Canada Judy A. Shea, PhD Associate professor of medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, and director of evaluation and assessment University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.082 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".