A Novel Professional Development Opportunity Enabling Editorial Experience With Our Journal

Le résumé fourni par la source

In her first editorial as Academic Medicine’s editor-in-chief, Dr. Roberts 1 laid out a vision that our journal would “work in the coming years with ever-greater intention and effort to engage with individuals at all stages of academic development; across all backgrounds, geographies, and walks of life.” Before her term as editor-in-chief had even officially begun, Dr. Roberts and our full journal team got to work, collaborating and brainstorming, to inform one of our early efforts toward realizing this goal: the creation of a novel professional development opportunity enabling editorial experience with our journal. In November 2019, we announced on our journal’s blog, AM Rounds, 2 that we were seeking applications for the new role of volunteer assistant editor. This new role would be distinct from that of the feature-specific assistant editors on our team, such as the assistant editor for AM Last Page and the assistant editor for trainee engagement. The more general role would be characterized by working closely with our journal’s editors and professional editorial staff on manuscript review and decision making, engaging with the editorial team and editorial board, and learning to develop content for scholarly publication. The role was envisioned as time-limited (a 1- or 2-year period) to allow a number of assistant editors to be selected over the coming decade. We thought we might get some interest from early-career faculty seeking to gain editorial experience; we were gratified (and pleasantly surprised!) to receive dozens of applications representing individuals from an array of institutions, backgrounds, areas of expertise, and past experiences. Working closely with our deputy and associate editors, we began the hard work of identifying the applicants whose skills and expertise were best aligned with our journal’s needs. Among the highly qualified candidates, we gave priority to those who had expertise in quantitative or qualitative research methodologies and to those who already had a proven track record of reviewing submissions to our journal. From there, we also considered the diversity of our applicants across many dimensions—discipline, professional role, institution, racial and ethnic background, geography, and others—to align with Dr. Roberts’ vision of inclusion as outlined in her first editorial. 1 We thought we would select 1 or 2 qualified applicants for the role, but in the end, we could not deny that 5 outstanding candidates met our high standards for selection and that all 5 candidates, taken together, would bring a wealth of disciplinary expertise and a wide range of backgrounds and lived experience to the journal’s editorial team. Therefore, we decided to invite all 5 to serve as volunteer assistant editors. By welcoming our 5 colleagues, we sought to offer a unique professional development opportunity to more members of the academic medicine community as well as to augment the perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences of our editorial team. When Irene Alexandraki, MD, MPH, Dorene Balmer, PhD, Will Bynum, MD, Yoon Soo Park, PhD, and Paula Thompson, PhD, MA, stepped into this new role in April 2020, we expected that each one would participate in the editorial review process, assessing submissions and external reviewer comments through their own lens of expertise, and gain experience along the way. We did not expect that they would immediately form a strong professional bond and self-organize into a unified cohort. Our monthly videoconferences quickly evolved from process-oriented updates to lively discussions about the principles of peer review, editorial decision making, and health professions education scholarship. We also bonded over shared major life events—the families of assistant editor Will Bynum and managing editor Mary Beth DeVilbiss each welcomed a new baby in 2020! In January 2021, the 5 original assistant editors were joined by Dan Schumacher, MD, PhD, MEd, whom we selected as a sixth assistant editor. In a commentary 3 in this issue, all the assistant editors reflect on their experiences co-creating this role with us. As we were onboarding these new assistant editors, the global COVID-19 pandemic was intensifying rapidly. Universities and medical schools were shifting to virtual learning; our world was confronted with the inadequacies of health systems and public health structures and the resulting health disparities; clinicians and essential workers were sacrificing their own well-being to care for others in previously unimaginable circumstances; and individuals were physically distancing from one another while trying to cope with the fear and uncertainty the pandemic had created. Then, in May 2020, the murder of George Floyd at the hands of police officers in Minneapolis was a catalyst for many across the country to reckon with issues of racial equity and social justice. In our journal, issues related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging were elevated in several editorials. 4–10 After the murder of George Floyd, Dr. Roberts invited those members of our editorial team and editorial board with lived experience of racism to prepare an editorial on racism and discrimination in academic medicine. This collaborative effort was led by assistant editor Paula Thompson, who, with her colleagues, wrote a compelling editorial 10 calling for an antiracist future for academic medicine. We continue to examine and refine our own policies and practices, with the help of the assistant editors, to ensure our editorial decision-making processes 11 are guided by the values of equity, diversity, and inclusion and to identify ways to further build capacity in the field through initiatives such as the assistant editor role. As we all learned to navigate a challenging new landscape along personal and professional dimensions in 2020, we at Academic Medicine also faced an unanticipated and unprecedented surge in submissions. In 2020, our journal received 4,551 submissions (3,045 were submitted for external peer review), compared with 2,687 submissions (1,815 for external review) in 2019. We typically see an increase in submissions of 5%–8% each year. In 2020, our submissions increased 69% compared with 2019. We quickly adjusted our processes and expectations about tasks and workloads to accommodate the swell of manuscripts, all while onboarding a new editor-in-chief, an expanded team of associate editors, and a new cohort of assistant editors. With mentorship and support from our journal’s deputy and associate editors, the assistant editors learned the processes and principles of editorial decision making and expanded the capacity of the editorial team significantly. The deputy and associate editors sought assistant editors’ feedback on individual submissions, participated in regular videoconferences with the cohort, and reached out individually to welcome these new members to the editorial team. As they gained experience, the assistant editors lent methodological and content expertise to supplement the review process and support decision making. They were each able to assess several submissions a week, carefully reviewing manuscripts and reviewer feedback to make publication recommendations to the editor-in-chief and the deputy and associate editors. The assistant editors’ work was critical to our ability to review submissions quickly and efficiently to ensure the most timely and relevant information was available to those on the frontlines of clinical care and education. Together, this cohort reviewed 281 submissions in 2020—about 6% of those received by the journal. The contributions of our assistant editors have become essential to our journal’s operations. The success of the assistant editor program is also due in large part to the dedicated work of our journal’s professional editorial staff. When Dr. Roberts recently asked the assistant editors about their experience so far, all mentioned their interactions with the staff

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.