Publishing Venues for Education Scholarship: A Needs Assessment

Jaime Jordan, David Jones, Dustin Williams, Jeffrey Druck, Damon R. Kuehl

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)731-735
Number of pages5
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Volume23
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2016

Fingerprint

Needs Assessment
Education
Publications
Research Design
Emergency Medicine
Research
Sample Size

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Jordan, J., Jones, D., Williams, D., Druck, J., & Kuehl, D. R. (2016). Publishing Venues for Education Scholarship: A Needs Assessment. Academic Emergency Medicine, 23(6), 731-735. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13003

Publishing Venues for Education Scholarship : A Needs Assessment. / Jordan, Jaime; Jones, David; Williams, Dustin; Druck, Jeffrey; Kuehl, Damon R.

In: Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 23, No. 6, 01.06.2016, p. 731-735.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jordan, J, Jones, D, Williams, D, Druck, J & Kuehl, DR 2016, 'Publishing Venues for Education Scholarship: A Needs Assessment', Academic Emergency Medicine, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 731-735. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13003
Jordan, Jaime ; Jones, David ; Williams, Dustin ; Druck, Jeffrey ; Kuehl, Damon R. / Publishing Venues for Education Scholarship : A Needs Assessment. In: Academic Emergency Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 23, No. 6. pp. 731-735.
@article{a5febbcddea94a6fbfc9e27a2424ae90,
title = "Publishing Venues for Education Scholarship: A Needs Assessment",
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.",
author = "Jaime Jordan and David Jones and Dustin Williams and Jeffrey Druck and Kuehl, {Damon R.}",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/acem.13003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "731--735",
journal = "Academic Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1069-6563",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Publishing Venues for Education Scholarship

T2 - A Needs Assessment

AU - Jordan, Jaime

AU - Jones, David

AU - Williams, Dustin

AU - Druck, Jeffrey

AU - Kuehl, Damon R.

PY - 2016/6/1

Y1 - 2016/6/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84971350092&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84971350092&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/acem.13003

DO - 10.1111/acem.13003

M3 - Article

C2 - 27155165

AN - SCOPUS:84971350092

VL - 23

SP - 731

EP - 735

JO - Academic Emergency Medicine

JF - Academic Emergency Medicine

SN - 1069-6563

IS - 6

ER -