Cameron MW, Crowther LN, Huang GC. Faculty development and infrastructure to support educational scholarship: a scoping review on author development. Acad Med. 2023;98(1):112–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004896[publishedOnlineFirst:2022/08/04].

Article  Google Scholar 

Sturgeon CM, Ditadi A. Let me speak! A reviewers’ guide to writing a successful meeting abstract. Stem Cell Reports. 2018;11(6):1324–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.11.016.

Article  Google Scholar 

Pujason Patron EC, Arcelles JDE. Conflict of interests regarding peer review:bias in manuscript rejection. Athens J Soc Sci. 2025;12(1):9–26. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajss.12-1-1.

Article  Google Scholar 

Ghosal T KS, Bharti PK, Ekbal A. Peer review analyze: a novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259238.

Yarris LM, Gottlieb M, Scott K, et al. Academic primer series: key papers about peer review. West J Emerg Med. 2017;18(4):721–8. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2017.2.33430[publishedOnlineFirst:20170419].

Article  Google Scholar 

Way DP, Bierer SB, Cianciolo AT, Gruppen L, Riddle JM, Mavis B. Fundamentals of scholarly peer review: a workshop for health professions educators on practicing scholarly citizenship. MedEdPORTAL. 2021;17:11174. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11174. ([published Online First: 20210802]).

Article  Google Scholar 

Pattemore A, Pattemore ME, Grinnell. Fatal and nonfatal flaws in early-career researchers’ conference abstracts. J Eur Second Lang Assoc. 2024;8(1):148–60. https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.114.

Article  Google Scholar 

Azer SA, Ramani S, Peterson R. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals. Med Teach. 2012;34(9):698–704. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2012.687488[publishedOnlineFirst:20120530].

Article  Google Scholar 

Dumenco L, Engle DL, Goodell K, Nagler A, Ovitsh RK, Whicker SA. Expanding group peer review: a proposal for medical education scholarship. Acad Med. 2017;92(2):147–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001384[publishedOnlineFirst:2016/09/30].

Article  Google Scholar 

Snell L, Spencer J. Reviewers’ perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Med Educ. 2005;39(1):90–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02026.x.

Article  Google Scholar 

Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007;31(2):145–52. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00104.2006.

Article  Google Scholar 

Orozco GS, Barreras RR, Hicks RW. Addressing the gap, advancing the knowledge: guidance for the abstract reviewer. AORN J. 2021;114(4):319–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.13497.

Article  Google Scholar 

Deveugele M, Silverman J. Peer-review for selection of oral presentations for conferences: are we reliable? Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(11):2147–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.06.007[publishedOnlineFirst:20170619].

Article  Google Scholar 

Foster C, Wager E, Marchington J, et al. Good practice for conference abstracts and presentations: GPCAP. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0070-x.

Article  Google Scholar 

Swanberg S, Dereski M. Structured abstracts: best practices in writing and reviewing abstracts for publication and presentation. MedEdPORTAL. 2014;10:9908. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.9908.

Article  Google Scholar 

Bloom BSE, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook I.: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company; 1956.

Google Scholar 

Anderson L, Krathwohl D, Bloom B. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longhman; 2001.

Google Scholar 

Leininger E, Shaw K, Moshiri N, Neiles K, Onsongo G, Ritz A. Ten simple rules for attending your first conference. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17(7):e1009133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009133[publishedOnlineFirst:2021/07/16].

Article  Google Scholar 

Lessing JN, Mark NM, Pierce RG. How to get more juice from each squeeze: maximizing outputs from academic efforts. Acad Med. 2022;97(7) https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000004438.

Dong H, Lio J, Sherer R, Jiang I. Some learning theories for medical educators. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31(3):1157–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01270-6[publishedOnlineFirst:20210322].

Article  Google Scholar 

Zackoff MW, Real FJ, Abramson EL, Li ST, Klein MD, Gusic ME. Enhancing educational scholarship through conceptual frameworks: a challenge and roadmap for medical educators. Acad Pediatr. 2019;19(2):135–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2018.08.003[publishedOnlineFirst:20180820].

Article  Google Scholar 

MedEdMentor. Theory database: Explore the essentials and beyond. Secondary theory database: Explore the essentials and beyond. 2024. Available from: https://mededmentor.org/theory-database/. Accessed 15 Mar 2025.

Lu FI, Takahashi SG, Kerr C. Myth or reality: self-assessment is central to effective curriculum in anatomical pathology graduate medical education. Acad Pathol. 2021;8:23742895211013530. https://doi.org/10.1177/23742895211013528[publishedOnlineFirst:2021/05/25].

Article  Google Scholar 

Kirkpatrick JD, Kirkpatrick WK. Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press, 2016.

Cohen HW. P values: use and misuse in medical literature. Am J Hypertens. 2011;24(1):18–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajh.2010.205.

Article  Google Scholar 

Ellaway RH, O’Brien BC, Sherbino J, et al. Is there a problem with evidence in health professions education? Acad Med. 2024;99(8):841–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000005730.

Article  Google Scholar 

Glassick CE, Taylor Huber M, Maeroff G. Scholarship assessed: evaluation of the professoriate. San Franscisco: Jossy-Bass; 1997.

Google Scholar 

Heck AJ, Arja S, Bauler LD, et al. Evaluation of an educational scholarship fellowship program for health professions educators. Medical Science Educator. 2024;34(4):831–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-024-02036-6.

Article  Google Scholar 

Shafian S, Ilaghi M, Shahsavani Y, et al. The feedback dilemma in medical education: insights from medical residents’ perspectives. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):424. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05398-y.

Article  Google Scholar 

El-Guebaly N, Foster J, Bahji A, Hellman M. The critical role of peer reviewers: challenges and future steps. Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2023;40(1):14–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725221092862[publishedOnlineFirst:20220901].

Article  Google Scholar 

Church K. Emerging trends: reviewing the reviewers (again). Nat Lang Eng. 2020;26:245–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324920000030.

Article  Google Scholar 

Haffar S, Bazerbachi F, Murad MH. Peer review bias: a critical review. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(4):670–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004.

Article  Google Scholar 

Smith OM, Davis KL, Pizza RB, et al. Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups. Nat Ecol Evol. 2023;7(4):512–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-01999-w.

Article  Google Scholar 

COPE Council. COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers — English. Version 2: September 2017. Committee on publication ethics. 2017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9.  Accessed 15 Mar 2025.