Submission ID 78010
| Code | OH-4-1 |
|---|---|
| At the end of this workshop, participants will be able to: | |
| Category | Medical Education |
| Type | Oral |
| Will the presenter be a: | Other |
| Presenter Other | Senior faculty |
| Title | 'A Difficult Medium for Addressing Feedback': Exploring How Research Authors Navigate the Peer Review Process |
| Background/Purpose | Peer review aims to provide meaningful feedback to research authors so they may improve their work, yet it constitutes a particularly challenging context for the exchange of feedback. We explore how research authors navigate the process of interpreting and responding to peer review feedback, in order to elaborate how feedback functions when some of the conditions thought to be necessary for it to be effective are not met. |
| Methods | Using constructivist grounded theory methodology, we interviewed 17 recently-published health professions education researchers about their experiences with the peer review process. Data collection and analysis were concurrent and iterative. We used constant comparison to identify themes and to develop a conceptual model of how feedback functions in this setting. |
| Results | While participants expressed faith in peer review, they acknowledged that the process was emotionally trying, and raised concerns about its consistency and credibility. These potential threats were mitigated by factors including time, team support, experience, and the exercise of autonomy. Additionally, the perceived engagement of reviewers and the cultural norms and expectations surrounding the process strengthened authors' willingness and capacity to respond productively. |
| Discussion | Feedback is a balancing act. Although threats to the productive uptake of peer review feedback abound, these threats may be neutralized by a range of countermeasures. Among these, opportunities for autonomy and cultural normalization of both the professional responsibility to engage with feedback and the challenge of doing so may be especially influential and may have implications beyond the peer review setting. |
| Keyword 1 | feedback |
| Keyword 2 | peer |
| Keyword 3 | review |
| Abstract content most relevant to: (check all that apply) | Continuing Professional Development (CPD) (faculty development, CME) |
| Abstract Track - First Choice | Research methods |
| Research methods | Qualitative |
| Authors | Chris Watling Jennifer Shaw Emily Field Shiphra Ginsburg Chris Watling |
