Using a Modified Delphi Method to Reach Consensus on Best Practices for Medical Education Abstract Submissions to Multiple Conferences.

PURPOSE: Medical education researchers are often uncertain whether they should submit abstracts to certain conferences. Therefore, we aimed to elicit consensus among medical education conference organizers to answer the question: what are best practices for research abstract submissions to multiple conferences? METHODS: Using a 44-question online survey, we conducted a modified Delphi process to identify best practices for abstract submissions to medical education conferences. Consistent with the Delphi process, we identified conference representatives from non-specialty medical education conferences and across four conference types (institutional, regional, national, and international) to serve as panelists. RESULTS: Eleven expert panelists, representing all four conference types-two institutional conferences, five regional conferences, two national conferences, and two international conferences-completed three rounds of the survey. After three rounds, panelists reached consensus on 39/44 survey items-26 items in round 1, 10 items in round 2, and three items in round 3. Panelists' consensus and rationale indicated that it is most appropriate to resubmit abstracts to conferences with a larger or different audience, but not to more homogeneous audiences. Among the four conference types, abstract resubmission from institutional conferences to other conference types was the most widely accepted. Panelists agreed that abstracts using data and results submitted or accepted for publication could be submitted to any conference type. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide best practices for presenting scholarship to medical education conferences. We recommend that guidelines for medical education conference abstract submissions provide consistent, clear instructions regarding the appropriate life cycle of an abstract.

Mutual Rewards: Engaging the Field and Creating a Path Toward Academic Journal Editorship.

In this commentary, the inaugural cohort of Academic Medicine assistant editors shares their experiences in this role and the value of creating a path toward academic journal editorship for early- and mid-career scholars. They are a group with diverse backgrounds and a common commitment to advance scholarship in medical education. They collectively describe how they have contributed to the journal in multiple ways, reflect on how they navigated onboarding challenges in the midst of a pandemic, and, most important, share why this role matters for the medical education scholarship community. They express how the assistant editor role has been mutually rewarding, allowing the assistant editors to gain entry to academic journal editorship while also serving the journal and its community.