The leaky pipeline of publications and knowledge generation in medical education

Abstract

My journey in medical education is a global one. I relocated as a doctor, teacher and researcher from the Global South (India) to the Global North (the Netherlands). As I reminisce about my ambitious, motivated self in India with competence in research, but low confidence in scientific writing and publishing, I realize that I simply did not have the training and resources to complete the trajectory from conducting innovative research to crafting a publication-worthy academic paper. By hindsight, my research was publication-worthy, my writing was not. Moving to the Netherlands gave my career a new boost. I was granted access to resources at a premier Dutch institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, and could benefit from the guidance of world-renowned expert Professor Olle ten Cate. By virtue of my new location and my new mentor, I became part of a network where the dominant knowledge conversations in the field were happening. I became privy to those conversations and viewpoints. I was able to identify gaps in the literature relatively easily through reading and talking to people about research and was successful in setting up my own research program with innovative research themes.After my PhD, as I gathered experience as a reviewer, I came across interesting manuscripts in medical education written by authors from the Global South that were rejected for reasons such as: 'the gap in the literature is not clear', 'poor quality of scientific writing', 'poor English language skills', 'this

Joining the meta-research movement: A bibliometric case study of the journal <em>Perspectives on Medical Education</em>

“…While PME received and published manuscripts from around the world, the majority of those manuscripts, as well as the majority of the researchers who peer reviewed those manuscripts, were affiliated with Western countries. While this finding aligns with the broader literature [ 26 , 28 ] and statistics from other journals in the field (e.g., Medical Education [ 31 ]), we feel there is an urgent need to grow our global representation and, as Kusurkar recently wrote in a PME editorial, work toward fixing the “leaky pipeline” of medical education researchers [ 32 ]. To this end, we are strategizing with our editorial team and editors of other HPE journals on how to more fully involve authors, readers, reviewers, and editors from around the globe.…”

Faster, higher, stronger – together? A bibliometric analysis of author distribution in top medical education journals

“…Wide-ranging explorations of representation, discrimination, harassment, silencing, and power differentials are appearing in leading MER journals. Many of these are written as commentaries and perspectives pieces, providing thoughtful analyses of personal experiences and theoretical explorations of ways that dominant approaches (generally white and Euro-American-centric) constrain and limit the field [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. There are also an increasing-albeit still small-number of empirical studies examining various aspects of representation within medical education, with recent attention given to gender, sociocultural, and racial equity within academic medicine's leadership, student body, and curricula [17][18][19][20][21].…”

Using theory in health professions education research: a guide for early career researchers

“…To reduce the reliance on others' interpretations of theory, it will also be important to engage with original sources of a chosen theory (or theories). To enhance inclusivity and diversity of theory [5,6], we advise ECRs to engage with theories from other disciplines (e.g., social psychology, sociology, education, philosophy, organisational, and economics etc. ), cultures and geographical settings, and with theories that are less well-known in the HPE field.…”

“…It is important to question theory because each theory: privileges a certain way of framing a research problem; is underpinned by certain assumptions; has different strengths and limitations [8]; and offers a different level of explanation and perspective [2][3][4]8]. Adopting a critical stance in relation to theory is also vital to decolonise and diversify research practices [5,6]. In order to effectively critique theory, we encourage ECRs to keep current with contemporary debates and discussions about theory and its use.…”

“…However, those who are new to HPE research and early career researchers (ECRs) can find it challenging to use theory. In this paper, we outline key considerations (see Table 1) for using theory in HPE research, both in relation to theory as a subject or content area and the process of using it, including critically questioning which theories are priviledged in the HPE literature [5,6]. By providing this guidance, we hope to support new and early-career HPE researchers around the globe to enhance their capacity to appraise and improve theoretical quality, both in relation to their own work and the HPE literature.…”