Unlocking Peer Review: Elevating Scholarly Writing and Research Competence in Urology Residency.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: It is incumbent upon training programs to set the foundation for evidence-based practices and to create opportunities for trainees to develop into academic leaders. As dedicated resident research time and funding have declined in recent years, residency programs and the field at large will need to create new ways to incorporate scholarly activity into residency curricula. RECENT FINDINGS: Literature across specialties demonstrates barriers to resident involvement including lack of time, cost, and absent scholarly mentorship. Peer review stands as a ready-made solution that can be formalized into a collaborative relationship with journals. A formal relationship between professional societies, academic journals, and residencies can facilitate the use of peer review as a teaching tool for residency programs.

Who should proof my paper?

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors address the challenges in proofreading a manuscript. Emerging researchers might think that someone in the production team will catch any errors. This may not always be the case. We emphasize the importance of guiding mentees to take the process of preparing a manuscript for submission seriously.

Using the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer in academic writing in health: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: to map the scientific literature regarding the use of the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, ChatGPT, in academic writing in health. METHOD: this was a scoping review, following the JBI methodology. Conventional databases and gray literature were included. The selection of studies was applied after removing duplicates and individual and paired evaluation. Data were extracted based on an elaborate script, and presented in a descriptive, tabular and graphical format. RESULTS: the analysis of the 49 selected articles revealed that ChatGPT is a versatile tool, contributing to scientific production, description of medical procedures and preparation of summaries aligned with the standards of scientific journals. Its application has been shown to improve the clarity of writing and benefits areas such as innovation and automation. Risks were also observed, such as the possibility of lack of originality and ethical issues. Future perspectives highlight the need for adequate regulation, agile adaptation and the search for an ethical balance in incorporating ChatGPT into academic writing. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT presents transformative potential in academic writing in health. However, its adoption requires rigorous human supervision, solid regulation, and transparent guidelines to ensure its responsible and beneficial use by the scientific community.

A practical guide for writing a PhD thesis.

There is an increasing number of PhD students in health sciences, but no formal reporting guideline for writing a thesis exists. This review provides a practical guide with an overview of the article-based/synopsis PhD thesis that consists of eight parts: 1) initial formalities, 2) introduction, 3) methodological considerations, 4) study presentations, 5) discussion, 6) conclusion, 7) perspectives, and 8) concluding formalities. It is elaborated with detailed information, practical advice, and a template, so the thesis complies with the demands of the Danish Graduate Schools of Health Sciences.

Increasing the Writing Capacity and Dissemination of Evaluation Findings Among US Public Health Practitioners Funded to Improve Cardiovascular Health.

CONTEXT: Contributing to the evidence base, by disseminating findings through written products such as journal articles, is a core competency for public health practitioners. Disseminating practice-based evidence that supports improving cardiovascular health is necessary for filling literature gaps, generating health policies and laws, and translating evidence-based strategies into practice. However, a gap exists in the dissemination of practice-based evidence in public health. Public health practitioners face various dissemination barriers (eg, lack of time and resources, staff turnover) which, more recently, were compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. PROGRAM: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP) partnered with the National Network of Public Health Institutes to implement a multimodal approach to build writing capacity among recipients funded by three DHDSP cooperative agreements. This project aimed to enhance public health practitioners' capacity to translate and disseminate their evaluation findings. IMPLEMENTATION: Internal evaluation technical assistance expertise and external subject matter experts helped to implement this project and to develop tailored multimodal capacity-building activities. These activities included online peer-to-peer discussion posts, virtual writing workshops, resource documents, one-to-one writing coaching sessions, an online toolkit, and a supplemental issue in a peer-reviewed journal. EVALUATION: Findings from an informal process evaluation demonstrate positive results. Most participants were engaged and satisfied with the project's activities. Across eight workshops, participants reported increased knowledge (≥94%) and enhanced confidence in writing (≥98%). The majority of participants (83%) reported that disseminating evaluation findings improved program implementation. Notably, 30 abstracts were submitted for a journal supplement and 23 articles were submitted for consideration. DISCUSSION: This multimodal approach serves as a promising model that enhances public health practitioners' capacity to disseminate evaluation findings during times of evolving health needs.

Assessing the Reproducibility of the Structured Abstracts Generated by ChatGPT and Bard Compared to Human-Written Abstracts in the Field of Spine Surgery: Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Due to recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), language model applications can generate logical text output that is difficult to distinguish from human writing. ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Bard (subsequently rebranded as "Gemini"; Google AI) were developed using distinct approaches, but little has been studied about the difference in their capability to generate the abstract. The use of AI to write scientific abstracts in the field of spine surgery is the center of much debate and controversy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the reproducibility of the structured abstracts generated by ChatGPT and Bard compared to human-written abstracts in the field of spine surgery. METHODS: In total, 60 abstracts dealing with spine sections were randomly selected from 7 reputable journals and used as ChatGPT and Bard input statements to generate abstracts based on supplied paper titles. A total of 174 abstracts, divided into human-written abstracts, ChatGPT-generated abstracts, and Bard-generated abstracts, were evaluated for compliance with the structured format of journal guidelines and consistency of content. The likelihood of plagiarism and AI output was assessed using the iThenticate and ZeroGPT programs, respectively. A total of 8 reviewers in the spinal field evaluated 30 randomly extracted abstracts to determine whether they were produced by AI or human authors. RESULTS: The proportion of abstracts that met journal formatting guidelines was greater among ChatGPT abstracts (34/60, 56.6%) compared with those generated by Bard (6/54, 11.1%; P<.001). However, a higher proportion of Bard abstracts (49/54, 90.7%) had word counts that met journal guidelines compared with ChatGPT abstracts (30/60, 50%; P<.001). The similarity index was significantly lower among ChatGPT-generated abstracts (20.7%) compared with Bard-generated abstracts (32.1%; P<.001). The AI-detection program predicted that 21.7% (13/60) of the human group, 63.3% (38/60) of the ChatGPT group, and 87% (47/54) of the Bard group were possibly generated by AI, with an area under the curve value of 0.863 (P<.001). The mean detection rate by human reviewers was 53.8% (SD 11.2%), achieving a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 48.4%. A total of 56.3% (63/112) of the actual human-written abstracts and 55.9% (62/128) of AI-generated abstracts were recognized as human-written and AI-generated by human reviewers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both ChatGPT and Bard can be used to help write abstracts, but most AI-generated abstracts are currently considered unethical due to high plagiarism and AI-detection rates. ChatGPT-generated abstracts appear to be superior to Bard-generated abstracts in meeting journal formatting guidelines. Because humans are unable to accurately distinguish abstracts written by humans from those produced by AI programs, it is crucial to exercise special caution and examine the ethical boundaries of using AI programs, including ChatGPT and Bard.

Should my recommendation letter be written by artificial intelligence?

SummaryLetters of recommendation are increasingly important for the residency match. We assessed whether an artificial intelligence (AI) tool could help in writing letters of recommendation by analyzing recommendation letters written by 3 academic staff and AI duplicate versions for 13 applicants. The preferred letters were selected by 3 blinded orthopedic program directors based on a pre-determined set of criteria. The first orthopedic program director selected the AI letter for 31% of applicants, and the 2 remaining program directors selected the AI letter for 38% of applicants, with the staff-written versions selected more often by all of the program directors (p < 0.05). The first program director recognized only 15% of the AI-written letters, the second was able to identify 92%, and the third director identified 77% of AI-written letters (p < 0.05).

So .You Want to be a Peer Reviewer?

Peer review is essential to preserving the integrity of the scientific publication process. Peer reviewers must adhere to the norms of the peer review process, including confidentiality, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest, timeliness, constructiveness, and thoroughness. This mini review will discuss some of the different formats in which peer review might occur, as well as advantages and disadvantages of each. The topics then shift to providing advice for prospective reviewers, as well as a suggested format for use in writing a review.

Learning evidence-based practice by writing the bachelor's thesis - A prospective cohort study in undergraduate nursing education.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice has been the desirable healthcare standard for decades. To ensure evidence-based healthcare in the future, nursing education curricula must include strategies for teaching evidence-based practice to nursing students. Learning outcomes about evidence-based practice might be incorporated into courses like the bachelor's thesis. AIM: This study investigates whether writing a bachelor's thesis influences nursing students' practice, skills, and attitudes towards evidence-based practice, and explores whether there are differences between students writing the thesis as a literature study and students conducting empirical studies. DESIGN: This Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study collects data on students' practice, skills, and attitudes towards evidence-based practice through the Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire and two questions from the Norwegian version of the Evidence-Based Practice profile questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: The sample consists of 314 nursing students writing their bachelor's thesis in the last term of their nursing education. The responding students represent all institutions of higher education in Norway. METHODS: Paired t-tests were used to examine changes in the subscales practice, retrieving/reviewing, sharing/applying, attitudes and total scale for the Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire from before they started to submission of the bachelor's thesis. Linear multiple regression analyses were conducted to explore differences between students writing a literature study and students conducting empirical studies. RESULTS: The analysis showed that the nursing students significantly increased in the three subscales practice, retrieving/reviewing, and sharing/applying, in addition to the total scale for the questionnaire, while writing the bachelor's thesis. Further, the analysis showed no difference on the scales between the groups of students writing a literature study or conducting an empirical study. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that writing the bachelor's thesis leads to increased learning about evidence-based practice and does not depend on the kind of thesis the students write.

Exploring ChatGPT's abilities in medical article writing and peer review.

AIM: To evaluate the quality of ChatGPT-generated case reports and assess the ability of ChatGPT to peer review medical articles. METHODS: This study was conducted from February to April 2023. First, ChatGPT 3.0 was used to generate 15 case reports, which were then peer-reviewed by expert human reviewers. Second, ChatGPT 4.0 was employed to peer review 15 published short articles. RESULTS: ChatGPT was capable of generating case reports, but these reports exhibited inaccuracies, particularly when it came to referencing. The case reports received mixed ratings from peer reviewers, with 33.3% of professionals recommending rejection. The reports' overall merit score was 4.9±1.8 out of 10. The review capabilities of ChatGPT were weaker than its text generation abilities. The AI as a peer reviewer did not recognize major inconsistencies in articles that had undergone significant content changes. CONCLUSION: While ChatGPT demonstrated proficiency in generating case reports, there were limitations in terms of consistency and accuracy, especially in referencing.

Association of reviewer experience with discriminating human-written versus ChatGPT-written abstracts.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if reviewer experience impacts the ability to discriminate between human-written and ChatGPT-written abstracts. METHODS: Thirty reviewers (10 seniors, 10 juniors, and 10 residents) were asked to differentiate between 10 ChatGPT-written and 10 human-written (fabricated) abstracts. For the study, 10 gynecologic oncology abstracts were fabricated by the authors. For each human-written abstract we generated a ChatGPT matching abstract by using the same title and the fabricated results of each of the human generated abstracts. A web-based questionnaire was used to gather demographic data and to record the reviewers' evaluation of the 20 abstracts. Comparative statistics and multivariable regression were used to identify factors associated with a higher correct identification rate. RESULTS: The 30 reviewers discriminated 20 abstracts, giving a total of 600 abstract evaluations. The reviewers were able to correctly identify 300/600 (50%) of the abstracts: 139/300 (46.3%) of the ChatGPT-generated abstracts and 161/300 (53.7%) of the human-written abstracts (p=0.07). Human-written abstracts had a higher rate of correct identification (median (IQR) 56.7% (49.2-64.1%) vs 45.0% (43.2-48.3%), p=0.023). Senior reviewers had a higher correct identification rate (60%) than junior reviewers and residents (45% each; p=0.043 and p=0.002, respectively). In a linear regression model including the experience level of the reviewers, familiarity with artificial intelligence (AI) and the country in which the majority of medical training was achieved (English speaking vs non-English speaking), the experience of the reviewer (ß=10.2 (95% CI 1.8 to 18.7)) and familiarity with AI (ß=7.78 (95% CI 0.6 to 15.0)) were independently associated with the correct identification rate (p=0.019 and p=0.035, respectively). In a correlation analysis the number of publications by the reviewer was positively correlated with the correct identification rate (r28)=0.61, p<0.001. CONCLUSION: A total of 46.3% of abstracts written by ChatGPT were detected by reviewers. The correct identification rate increased with reviewer and publication experience.

Could coping with your inner critic be the key to unlocking your scholarly writing?

INTRODUCTION: Though various barriers to productive writing habits exist in academia, scholarship is a critical part of faculty expectations. One barrier that has not been well addressed in the literature is the presence and interference of a negative inner critic, an internal voice or dialogue that criticizes work, halts creativity, and paralyzes writing. COMMENTARY: The purpose of this commentary is to describe the limited evidence-base and anecdotal strategies shown to support increased writing productivity by acknowledging and navigating the inner critic. With strategies such as proper identification, acknowledgment, strong mentor-mentee relationships, personifying the inner critic, embracing a growth mindset, and considering the distinct phases of writing, faculty can cope with their critical inner voice and reclaim control of their scholarly writing productivity. IMPLICATIONS: With such a heavy emphasis on writing productivity for faculty, faculty are encouraged to more formally explore and implement professional development strategies to help navigate their inner critic and bolster writing productivity.

Rest is essential for effective therapies, and so it is for preparing a manuscript.

Numerous medical articles are commented upon. This suggests that their scientific quality is insufficient. This need not be the case, however: most comments regard the presentation of the data, the conclusions or lacking information in the discussion. Such flaws can commonly be attributed to either too much haste in writing the manuscript, or insufficient time between finishing the manuscript and submission; this last problem seems the most common cause, as it deprives the author from reading his own text critically and with an open mind. The solution for this problem is simple: after having finished a manuscript, it should be laid aside for at least a week, after which the author should read it with the eyes of a reader, not the eyes of an author. Critical, open-minded reading after rest helps increase the quality of the resulting manuscript, just like rest helps a patient during most therapies.