Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Willinsky, J. M.

Publications and source records attributed to Willinsky, J. M..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

"The best home for this paper": A qualitative study of how authors select where to submit manuscripts

IntroductionFor academics selecting a target journal to submit a manuscript is a critical decision with career implications. In medical education, research conducted in 2016 found that authors were influenced by multiple factors such as a journals prestige and its mission. However, since this research was conducted the publishing landscape has shifted to include a broader variety of journals, an increased threat of predatory journals, and new publishing models. This study updates and expands upon how medical education authors decide which journal to submit to with the aim of describing the motivational factors and journal characteristics that guide authors decision making. MethodsThe authors conducted five qualitative focus groups in which twenty-two medical education authors and editors participated. During the focus groups participants were engaged in a discussion about how they select a journal to submit their manuscripts. Audio from all focus groups was transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis. ResultsParticipants considered multiple factors when selecting a target journal. Factors included a journals impact, the scope of a journal, journal quality, and technical factors (e.g., word limits). Participants also described how social factors influenced their process and that open access plays a role that could both encourage or deter submission. DiscussionThe findings describe the motivational factors and influential signals that guide authors in their journal selection decision making. These findings confirm, extend, and update journal selection factors reported in medical education and other disciplines. Notably, these findings emphasize the role of social factors, relationships and personal experiences, which were absent from previous work. Additionally, we observed increased consideration of OA and a shift away from an emphasis on journal prestige.

scientific communication and education↗

Enculturating a Community of Action (CoA): A qualitative study of health professions educators' perspectives on teaching with Wikipedia

PurposeThere is a growing desire for health professions educators to engage learners in more meaningful instruction. Many have tapped Wikipedia to offer an applied approach to engage learners, particularly as it relates to evidence-based medicine (EBM). However, little is known about the benefits and challenges of using Wikipedia as a pedagogical tool from the collective experience of educators who have sought to improve their instructional practice with it. This study aims to uncover and synthesize the perspectives of health professions education (HPE) instructors who have incorporated Wikipedia in their HPE courses. MethodsApplying a constructivist approach, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 participating HPE instructors who had substantively integrated Wikipedia into their curriculum. Participants were interviewed about their experiences of integrating Wikipedia editing into their courses. Thematic analysis was conducted on resulting transcripts. ResultsAuthors observed two broad themes among participants expressed benefits of teaching with Wikipedia: 1) provides a meaningful instructional alternative that also benefits society and develops learners information literacy and EBM skills, and 2) supports learners careers and professional identity formation. Identified challenges included: 1) high effort and time, 2) issues with sourcing references, and 3) challenging interactions with skeptics, editors, and students. DiscussionFindings build on known benefits, such as providing a real-world collaborative project that contextualizes students learning experiences. They also echo known challenges, such as the resource-intensive nature of teaching with Wikipedia. At the same time, findings extend the current literature by revealing a potential opportunity to approach crowd-sourced information tools, like Wikipedia, as a vehicle to engage and enculturate HPE students within a situated learning context. These findings present implications for HPE programs considering implementing Wikipedia and faculty development needed to help instructors harness crowd-sourced information tools pedagogical opportunities as well as anticipate their challenges.

scientific communication and education↗

Reader Engagement with Wikipedia’s Medical Content

Wikipedias extensive health and medical entries, maintained by WikiProject Medicine (WPM), are well supported by external links that provide readers with both a means of verifying the sources drawn upon and visiting those sources to learn more about a topic. In analysing how readers approach these links, data was collected on reader engagement with these links on WPM pages and on the rest of Wikipedia over a 32-day period. Readers of WPM pages were found to engage with external links more frequently than readers of the rest of Wikipedia, with WPM readers favoring hovering over a link and footnote clicking, compared to W readers who tended to click more external links per page viewed. Compared to readers of the rest of Wikipedia, WPM readers appear more attentive to the external links function in verifying and authorizing Wikipedia content, than to the educational potential of examining the sources themselves.

scientific communication and education↗