MedEdPORTAL: Opportunities to Advance Educational Scholarship, Share Innovations, and Promote Continuing Education Robby Reynolds Sr. Director, Med Ed Online Programs Eric Wilkerson Business Operations Manager Sean Compas, MA Business Operations Specialist Terri Cameron Director, Curriculum Programs

Who Has Used MedEdPORTAL? Submitted? Downloaded? Searched? Peer Reviewer or Associate Editor?

Workshop Objectives Identify the differences between the MedEdPORTAL services: Publications iCollaborative CE Directory Dissect the Publications submission process Identify potential copyright and patient privacy violations Interpret MedEdPORTAL’s Publications peer review criteria Recognize Educational Scholarship

Workshop Objectives Identify the differences between the MedEdPORTAL services: Publications iCollaborative CE Directory Dissect the Publications submission process Identify potential copyright and patient privacy violations Interpret MedEdPORTAL’s Publications peer review criteria Recognize Educational Scholarship

MedEdPORTAL www.mededportal.org/about

MedEdPORTAL Suite of Services Publications: peer reviewed health education and assessment tools iCollaborative: promotes exchange of Innovative approaches, practices, and strategies for transforming healthcare For those of you who are not familiar, MedEdPORTAL is a free, online service provided by the Association of American Medical Colleges in partnership with the American Dental Education Association. Through it’s three services – Publications, iCollaborative and the CE Directory - the overall vision of MedEdPORTAL is to succeed as the most utilized, cited and influential destination for health education. If any of you follow us on twitter you’d know that #FOAMed is the name of the game and we’re proud to be a player. Anyone and everyone are welcome to access as well as contribute to the MedEdPORTAL vision once they sign in using their AAMC username and password, which again are open to the general public. Now, there are many ways in which a user can contribute, but a good starting point is to see which sub-vision you most identify with. Publications was created to allow users to access peer reviewed, classroom tested health education tools. By accessing these complete, vetted modules, users can implement high quality materials at their own institution rather than spending both time and resources to create curricular pieces on their own. The rigorous peer review component backing Publications allows published authors to receive scholarly recognition for their publications. The formal citation and impact usage data they receive can be included within their CV packets in the support of promotion and tenure decisions. --Raise your hand if you can think of something you’ve created and could share with other educators. iCollaborative aims to promote the sharing of and collaboration on innovative educational ideas being developed and tested at member institutions. These tools differ from those in Publications in that they are not MedEdPORTAL peer reviewed, they may not have yet been classroom tested and they may not be fully functioning as a complete learning module. The purpose of iCollaborative is just to get the ideas out there and shared with the community. --Is your institution doing something innovative that you could share? The CE Directory offers access to credited online continuing education activities that were developed by faculty at one of the AAMC’s member institutions and made available in their entirety on their home institution’s continuing education websites. --Has anyone ever found the perfect CME course only to realize it was expired? Great well now that you have an idea of the vision of each of our 3 services, we would like to show you some of the ways in which we distinguish between the three in MedEdPORTAL CE Directory: directory of evidence-based online CE credited activities www.mededportal.org

MedEdPORTAL Publications Free online publication service Open to the general public around the globe Peer reviewed health education teaching & assessment materials Stand-alone modules including instructor guides and all educational tools Mouse Click 1 (Bullet 1) – As with each of the other services, MedEdPORTAL Publications is a free service. Mouse Click 2 (Bullet 2) - MedEdPORTAL publications are open and available to the general public around the globe. There are no restrictions as to who can create a user account and download published materials. However, there is a special collection of MedEdPORTAL resources designated as “special clearance” that restricts student access. Mouse Click 3 (Bullet 3) – All publications have been peer reviewed by invited expert reviewers and currently cover the continuum of health education. Mouse Click 4 (Bullet 4) – MedEdPORTAL publications are complete, stand-alone learning modules that include Instructor Guides and all the necessary tools that will allow an educator to download, utilize, and implement the educational resource into the curricula at their own institution without ever having to contact the author. The Instructor Guides included within a MedEdPORTAL publication is one of the distinguishing qualities that sets our Publications apart from other MedEdPORTAL services. www.mededportal.org www.mededportal.org

MedEdPORTAL Publications Cases Curriculum Toolkits Lab Guides Presentations Tutorials www.mededportal.org More…

Publications Usage Reports As you recall, one of the drivers for the creation of MedEdPORTAL Publications was to provide a venue for teaching faculty to receive recognition for their pieces of educational scholarship. One way published authors can demonstrate the impact of their publication is through a Usage Report, which are available 24/7 through the author’s “My MedEdPORTAL” page. This report provides both aggregated and more detailed data per publication. The summary usage data demonstrate includes:   Total number of downloads Total number of unique users downloading Total number of unique countries Reasons for user download (teaching/training, self learning, curriculum development, assessment and evaluation). Usage reports of this nature is a distinct feature available only for authors of MedEdPORTAL peer reviewed publications. Now Hannah is going to show you some of the distinct features about the iCollaborative and CE Directory www.mededportal.org

Publications Usage Reports Real-time Download Reports Unique Users Unique Countries Unique Institutions Rationales for Download Commentary Posted

Publications Usage Statistics 1,000+ publications downloaded weekly 1,500 peer-reviewed publications currently available 50+ submissions each month All major health professions downloading Over 1,500 expert, nominated peer-reviewers

Publications Statistics: Cumulative This slide represents our publication statistics. The vast majority of our publications require peer review related revisions prior to acceptance. 14.6% of submissions are accepted as is and 15.0% of submissions are rejected. Reasons for Rejection www.mededportal.org

Publications Global Utilization Click to add bullet Top 10 Countries: United States Canada United Kingdom India Australia Philippines Egypt Malaysia Saudi Arabia Germany The represented health education institutions and professionals cover the globe as MedEdPORTAL is accessed and utilized in 193 countries. 196 Countries

MedEdPORTAL iCollaborative Free online sharing and collaboration service Open to the general public around the globe Community building environment Innovative approaches, practices, and strategies for transforming healthcare Mouse Click 1 (Bullet 1) – The iCollaborative is a free, online platform for sharing innovative approaches to health education and patient care. Mouse Click 2 (Bullet 2) - There are no restrictions on who can create a user account and download posted materials. Unlike Publications there is no “Special Clearance” collection. Mouse Click 3 (Bullet 3) – iCollaborative is a community building environment where MedEdPORTAL users are encouraged to share and provide feedback through commenting, rating capabilities and social media platforms. Mouse Click 4 (Bullet 4) – Rather than offering formally peer reviewed, classroom tested, stand alone modules we see in Publications, the iCollaborative includes educational modules that may still be in development or are otherwise not “complete.” This could include externally hosted materials. iCollaborative aims to connect health professionals in an interprofessional setting by sharing innovative approaches, effective practices, and strategies for improving healthcare education and patient care delivery. www.mededportal.org/icollaborative

iCollaborative Resources Fact Sheets References Videos Websites Posters

Tracking Usage: iCollaborative iCollaborative contributors can track usage by way of download counts on their “My MedEdPORTAL” page. The formal Usage Reports generated for content in Publications is reserved for authors of formally MedEdPORTAL peer reviewed publications. In the above screenshot, Henning Saul’s iCollaborative resource has been downloaded 10 times.

MedEdPORTAL CE Directory Overview Free online CME directory service Open to the general public around the globe Search & Find high-quality online CME activities Promote AAMC member developed AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ online CME activities Mouse Click 1 (Bullet 1) – The CE Directory offers access to over 700 continuing education activities that are delivered in their entirely through an online format. Mouse Click 2 (Bullet 2) – Access to the directory is open to the public but the availability of an individual activity is at the discretion of the institution which hosts the material. Mouse Click 3 (Bullet 3) – The referenced activities are high-quality, evidence-based and developed by faculty at one of AAMC’s member institutions. Mouse Click 4 (Bullet 4) – All activities have received the AMA PRA Category 1 Credit. www.mededportal.org/ce

CE Directory Activities Patient Safety Pain Management Team-Based Quality Improvement www.mededportal.org/ce

Let’s take some time to review some specific components that are special to a CE Directory activity. Click 1 – CE Directory activities are equipped with their own CE logo. Click 2 – This activity comes from the University of Kentucky School of Medicine and focuses on teaching health care providers the importance of health literacy and it’s implications for effective patient-doctor communication. Click 3 – You can also see on the lower right-hand side that this course is part of a series and the associated activities are listed on the right hand side. Click 4 – Specific to the CE Directory are the Released and Expiration Dates listed on the abstracts. Activities are removed from the directory when they have expired. Click 5 – All activities within the CE Directory are credited. There is a specific credit tab on all CE activity abstracts. Here, you will see that this activity has 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit, and 1 ACPE credit that are awarded upon completion for no charge. Click 6 – All activities in the CE Directory are online courses but MedEdPORTAL does not actually host the material. Instead, MedEdPORTAL directs users to the institution’s CE website which hosts the course. Click 7 - Like the iCollaborative, users can rate activities and provide feedback through threading commentary and star rating. Click 8 – And again, as with the other services, a CE Directory abstract will populate relevant peer reviewed publications and iCollaborative resources. Here you see a close-up of related materials.

Table Exercise 5 examples of materials appropriate for Publications 5 examples of materials not appropriate for Publications 3 examples of materials appropriate for iCollaborative 3 examples of materials not appropriate for iCollaborative 2 examples of materials appropriate for CE Directory 2 examples of materials no appropriate for CE Directory

Quiz Who can create a MedEdPORTAL user account? Who can download resources from MedEdPORTAL? Who can submit resources to MedEdPORTAL? How much does it cost to use MedEdPORTAL? Why would you use MedEdPORTAL?

Workshop Objectives Identify the differences between the MedEdPORTAL services: Publications iCollaborative CE Directory Dissect the Publications submission process Identify potential copyright and patient privacy violations Interpret MedEdPORTAL’s Publications peer review criteria Recognize Educational Scholarship

Publications Submission Process Screening Peer Review Publish Once the author has completed preparing their materials, they are invited to submit for peer review through our external peer review management system called Manuscript Central. All correspondence between the author, staff, Associate Editors, peer reviewers and Editor-in-Chief takes place within this system. Upon receipt of the submission, MedEdPORTAL staff perform a preliminary review to ensure the material is within scope and meets MedEdPORTAL submission standards. To meet these standards, the submissions must have a comprehensive Instructor’s Guide and associated educational activities. A submission will be rejected prior to peer review if it is lacking in educational content to be considered “complete.” Examples of incomplete submissions lacking actual educational content syllabi, reference lists, or a course descriptions. In these cases, the author may be encouraged to submit their material to iCollaborative for further development. If a submission is considered complete, our Editorial staff then screen the submission for any potential copyright or patient privacy violations. MEP will not allow for any unauthorized third party material to enter the peer review process. The author must obtain explicit permission to include any material that is not their own in their publication or they must remove it. MEP staff with work with the author to get these issues taken care of and we provide permission release forms for the author’s to use. It is important to note that since MEP is globally accessible and materials are available for free of charge, indefinitely, MEP does not adhere to fair use. Once screening concerns are resolved, the submission enters the peer review process. Each submission receives the peer review from at least two content experts. If the submission successfully passes through peer review and is accepted, MedEdPORTAL staff catalogue and then publish the submission live to the site. The entire submission to publication process typically takes 3-4 months but it largely depends on the level of revisions that are required both at the point of screening and post peer review.

Packaging Submission Submissions must include scholarly educational content and should be able to stand alone as a learning module. Learning modules should be of manageable size. All web-based submissions must be stripped down and packaged for submission to MedEdPORTAL. All submissions must include an Instructor’s Guide. In summary, here are the key points we’ve covered in relation to packaging.   Submissions must include scholarly educational content and should be able to stand alone as a learning module. All learning modules should be of manageable size. All web-based submissions must be stripped down and packaged for submission to MedEdPORTAL. All submissions must include an Instructor’s Guide.

Instructor’s Guide List of all the resource files included in the submission. Explanation of when, how, and the order in which to use each resource file. The purpose/goal of the resource. The conceptual background. Practical implementation advice. Unlike traditional print based publications, there is no restriction on the different types of files that comprise your submission. However, there is one necessary component that must accompany your submission – an Instructor’s guide. Instructor Guides All submissions to MedEdPORTAL MUST include an instructor's guide that will be disseminated with the actual resource if published. List of all the resource files included in the submission. Explanation of when, how, and the order in which to use each resource file. The purpose/goal of the resource (including educational objectives) The conceptual background (why and how it was created) Practical implementation advice (materials needed, length of session, faculty/facilitator needs, preparation needs, etc.) How has it been successfully deployed (including common pitfalls, tips for success, etc.) What are the limitations of the resource and what are your ideas for improving/expanding it (adding this self-reflection component is encouraged). How has it been successfully deployed? What are the limitations of the resource?

Web-based Submissions Web sites .swf .ppt .jpg .mov .html MedEdPORTAL does not accept website submissions – or submissions that are submitted as a URL. We will only consider web submissions packaged in a format that can be hosted on or disseminated through our website. This policy exists for several reasons. It allows us to can host the complete resource on our servers in perpetuity after publication and helps to avoid any outside technical issues or shortfalls in site maintenance. Also, it ensures that our peer review isn’t compromised. We have no way of knowing whether or not an author makes changes post-peer review.   With that said, web-based submissions are only accepted when authors can package and upload all the various content files during the submission process as opposed to submitting the link to where the content is hosted. If the files are too large, then you can certainly submit them offline on a CD or DVD. This restriction does not mean that an author cannot maintain the web-based resource on their own servers after publication on MedEdPORTAL or alluded to in an Instructor’s Guide – we just need the files on our end.

Packaging Your Submission Insufficient Content Syllabi Tables of Content Excessive Content Submitting to MedEdPORTAL requires that your material is packaged appropriately. Submissions to MedEdPORTAL are considered standalone teaching modules – this means complete modules have learning objectives, an Instructor’s Guide, and an educational activity.   Occasionally, we will receive materials that don’t meet our packaging requirements. Sometimes, materials that are submitted to MedEdPORTAL do not contain enough content. This might be a syllabus, a reference list, or a course description. What keeps these resources from moving on is that they lack the educational component, usually the activity, which is needed to be a full standalone module. Also, these types of resources usually do not contain the scholarly standard needed for peer review. On the other hand, some submissions fall into the category of excessive content. These normally are entire courses submitted as a single publication. In this situation, we strongly encourage authors to break apart their material into separate modules. Why do we stress this? Most of our users are looking for modules to supplement their courses instead of replace them entirely. Also, it is often difficult to get such large resources through the peer review process. Rejection of one part of a resource results in a rejection of the entire resource.  In either circumstance, we will work with the submitting author through these issues. Entire Curricula

Table Discussion 10 minutes: describe your educational resource 10 minutes: discuss how to package the resource for submission 10 minutes: reporting back to larger group

Workshop Objectives Identify the differences between the MedEdPORTAL services: Publications iCollaborative CE Directory Dissect the Publications submission process Identify potential copyright and patient privacy violations Interpret MedEdPORTAL’s Publications peer review criteria Recognize Educational Scholarship

Publications Screening Process Submission Screening Peer Review Publish 4 Staff Editors Once the author has completed preparing their materials, they are invited to submit for peer review through our external peer review management system called Manuscript Central. All correspondence between the author, staff, Associate Editors, peer reviewers and Editor-in-Chief takes place within this system. Upon receipt of the submission, MedEdPORTAL staff perform a preliminary review to ensure the material is within scope and meets MedEdPORTAL submission standards. To meet these standards, the submissions must have a comprehensive Instructor’s Guide and associated educational activities. A submission will be rejected prior to peer review if it is lacking in educational content to be considered “complete.” Examples of incomplete submissions lacking actual educational content syllabi, reference lists, or a course descriptions. In these cases, the author may be encouraged to submit their material to iCollaborative for further development. If a submission is considered complete, our Editorial staff then screen the submission for any potential copyright or patient privacy violations. MEP will not allow for any unauthorized third party material to enter the peer review process. The author must obtain explicit permission to include any material that is not their own in their publication or they must remove it. MEP staff with work with the author to get these issues taken care of and we provide permission release forms for the author’s to use. It is important to note that since MEP is globally accessible and materials are available for free of charge, indefinitely, MEP does not adhere to fair use. Once screening concerns are resolved, the submission enters the peer review process. Each submission receives the peer review from at least two content experts. If the submission successfully passes through peer review and is accepted, MedEdPORTAL staff catalogue and then publish the submission live to the site. The entire submission to publication process typically takes 3-4 months but it largely depends on the level of revisions that are required both at the point of screening and post peer review.

Copyright Concerns Photos Images MedEdPORTAL staff screen each submission for potential third-party materials. Charts Published Articles What % of submissions contain copyright issues? Graphs Cartoons When resources are submitted to MedEdPORTAL, we screen all documents for embedded third-party material. This includes: photos, images, charts, published articles, graphs, cartoons, and large portions of text. If these are not created by the author (or co-authors), then permission is needed that explicitly allows MedEdPORTAL to reproduce the material. Permission must state that you, as an author, have the right to redistribute the material in your submission to MedEdPORTAL online, for free, and in perpetuity. Currently, 90% of all submissions are flagged for potential copyright problems. This is the biggest concern we see in the screening stage. This is not to discourage you, however, because approximately 85% of these concerns are eventually resolved and the submission makes it into review. Text (large portions)

Finding Appropriate Images MedEdPORTAL iCollaborative: www.mededportal.org/icollaborative Flickr: www.flickr.com Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org NIH Photo Galleries: www.nih.gov/about/nihphotos.htm So, how can we find material that is appropriate to use? There are several repositories out there that specialize in images that are in the public domain or available via a Creative Commons license. These include Health Education Assets Library, Flickr, Wikimedia Commons, and the NIH Photo Galleries. A handout has been provided for you with some information on these sites and what to look for. You still need to be careful here, as not all images are free to use.

Publicly Accessible vs. Public Domain Not covered by copyright Copyright has expired Author has willingly released this material Federal government websites Let’s take a quick look at the distinction between images that are publicly accessible vs. those that are in the public domain.   Images that are publicly accessible are accessible to you via Google and other public search engines. This doesn’t mean the image is free to use or that the creator of the images has released the material into the public domain. We do not encourage you to look for images this way. Public domain refers specifically to material that: Not covered by copyright The copyright that has expired Authors has willingly released materials Material found on federal government websites (NIH, HHS). Images should have a details section that specifically states this, or you might be able to find the information located in the terms of use.

MedEdPORTAL and Fair Use Fair Use: a legal concept in the United States that defends the use of copyrighted material without obtaining permission or paying royalties. Fair use is a defense, not a right. Fair use relates to U.S. copyright law only. Another confusing concept when dealing with copyrighted images is Fair Use. Many authors think that educational and non-commercial purposes might bypass copyright restrictions. MedEdPORTAL does not adhere to fair use for several reasons.   Definition of Fair Use: a legal concept that allows for the use of copyrighted material for certain purposes without obtaining permission or paying royalties. Examples include scholars, researchers, students who use small portions of such material for socially or educationally productive purposes. Interesting Facts about Fair Use: Fair use is a defense, not a right. Let’s say that you use a PowerPoint presentation in your class that contains copyrighted material. If the owner of that copyrighted material was to challenge your use of it, you may be able to bring up Fair Use as your defense, because you were using the material in an educational sense AND on a relatively small scale. However, MedEdPORTAL is an online journal – our publications are globally distributed on a mass scale. Because fair use is a defense, a reactive concept, you can’t justify your use of the material until someone challenges it. Perhaps the most obvious example of why we do not adhere to fair use is because it’s a US concept - MEP publications are distributed around the world and we receive submissions from international authors.

Patient Privacy Violations Patient Photographs Charts MedEdPORTAL staff screen each submission for potentially identifiable “protected health information.” Lab Values Medical Records Images Graphs The second thing we screen for is patient privacy. To be in compliance with HIPPA, we screen each submission for potentially identifiable “protected health” information, such as: patient photographs, charts, lab values, medical records, images, graphs, radiographs, and biometric identifiers.   These may also pose copyright problems, so they same type of issues we’ve just discussed might apply. Radiographs Biometric Identifiers

Screening: Copyright & Patient Privacy

Examples: Copyright/Patient Privacy Image accessed 10 November 2010 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brain_diagram_it.svg Associated Creative Commons License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en Image accessed 10 November 2010 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brain_diagram_it.svg Associated Creative Commons License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

Examples: Copyright/Patient Privacy

Examples: Copyright/Patient Privacy Here, we have a pretty obvious example of a patient privacy violation.   Just like copyrighted images, the first thing we’ll ask is if this image belongs to the author. If so, you will need to identify this as part of your own collection and black out all identifiable information. Photo Source: www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10208422/Girl-nine-told-to-walk-off-broken-leg-by-doctor.html

Examples: Copyright/Patient Privacy Medical Record # 1234 Wilkerson, E D.O.B. 1-1-1980  If this is not part of your collection, you’ll need to document where you found this image and provide written permission from the author of that image. You will still need to black out the identifiable information.   And finally, if neither of these is possible, then you’ll need to remove the image or find one from one of the open-access repositories that allows for redistribution, cite it properly, and – one again – black out identifiable information. Creative Commons License: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Image retrieved on 26 October 2009 from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ann-alto/2724265384

Will it pass screening? Animation Source: https://www.mededportal.org/icollaborative/resource/1353

Will they pass screening? Google Image: http://mausergirl.deviantart.com/art/Hospital-Scenes-Emergency-Room-283749592 Photo Source: Fairbanks Hospital Emergency Department http://www.jrjarch.com/portfolio/fairbanks_hospital_emergency_department

Will it pass screening? Source: http://radiology.casereports.net/index.php/rcr/article/viewArticle/709/1005

Will it pass screening? Image Source: Image Created by Author

Will it pass screening? Source: NIH (public domain as stated on website) URL: https://imagebank.nih.gov/details.cfm?imageid=1465

Will it pass screening? Image Source: http://thereviewersclub.blogspot.com/2012/07/quote-of-day-er.html Permission Granted by Website Owner on March 27, 2014

Trivia Question What if you can't replace a copyrighted image in your resource?

Workshop Objectives Identify the differences between the MedEdPORTAL services: Publications iCollaborative CE Directory Dissect the Publications submission process Identify potential copyright and patient privacy violations Interpret MedEdPORTAL’s Publications peer review criteria Recognize Educational Scholarship

Publications Peer-Review Process Submission Screening Peer Review Publish Editor-in-Chief Managing Editor 4 Staff Editors 37 Associate Editors 1,500+ Peer Reviewers Once the author has completed preparing their materials, they are invited to submit for peer review through our external peer review management system called Manuscript Central. All correspondence between the author, staff, Associate Editors, peer reviewers and Editor-in-Chief takes place within this system. Upon receipt of the submission, MedEdPORTAL staff perform a preliminary review to ensure the material is within scope and meets MedEdPORTAL submission standards. To meet these standards, the submissions must have a comprehensive Instructor’s Guide and associated educational activities. A submission will be rejected prior to peer review if it is lacking in educational content to be considered “complete.” Examples of incomplete submissions lacking actual educational content syllabi, reference lists, or a course descriptions. In these cases, the author may be encouraged to submit their material to iCollaborative for further development. If a submission is considered complete, our Editorial staff then screen the submission for any potential copyright or patient privacy violations. MEP will not allow for any unauthorized third party material to enter the peer review process. The author must obtain explicit permission to include any material that is not their own in their publication or they must remove it. MEP staff with work with the author to get these issues taken care of and we provide permission release forms for the author’s to use. It is important to note that since MEP is globally accessible and materials are available for free of charge, indefinitely, MEP does not adhere to fair use. Once screening concerns are resolved, the submission enters the peer review process. Each submission receives the peer review from at least two content experts. If the submission successfully passes through peer review and is accepted, MedEdPORTAL staff catalogue and then publish the submission live to the site. The entire submission to publication process typically takes 3-4 months but it largely depends on the level of revisions that are required both at the point of screening and post peer review.

Scholarship Traditional Definition: Original research that has been peer-reviewed and published

1990 Boyer offered new paradigm: recognized the full range of scholarly activity by college and university faculty questioned the existence of a reward system that pushed faculty toward research and publication and away from teaching

Implications of Boyer’s Work Broadened the conventional definition of scholarship beyond the traditional research article. BUT Did it dilute scholarship such that virtually ANY academic work could be considered scholarship? Many were reluctant to abandon peer review.

Glassick extended Boyer’s work: examined changing nature of scholarship in colleges and universities proposed new standards with special emphasis on methods for assessment and documentation provided a base of information for and gave focus to the debate of institutional standards of rigor and quality 1997

“Scholarship Assessed” Criteria Effective presentation Publications: Teaching as Educational Scholarship “Scholarship Assessed” Criteria Clear Goals Adequate preparation Appropriate methods Significant results Effective presentation Reflective critique Scholarship criteria for accommodating “educational products,” a non-traditional form of scholarship. The next group of slides will detail each of “Scholarship Assessed” six criteria: Clear Goals Adequate Preparation Appropriate Methods Significant Results Effective Presentation Reflective Critique

Publications: Translating Criteria Criterion Description Publications Submission Form Questions Clear goals The author clearly states the goals of the work using educational objectives. Educational Objectives A key difference between MedEdPORTAL Publications and iCollaborative or the CE Directory is that all tools within Publications include a comprehensive Instructor’s Guide. Key to the future successful implementation of your publication by others at their own institution is the reflective feedback that you provide in the Instructor’s Guide. Each of six criteria detailed in “Scholarship Assessed” should be addressed in the Instructor’s Guide and within the MedEdPORTAL Publications submission form.

Publications: Translating Criteria Criterion Description Publications Submission Form Questions Clear goals The author clearly states the goals of the work using educational objectives. Educational Objectives Adequate preparation The author uses prior work (e.g., existing scholarship and personal experience) to inform and develop the work. List any references used to create this work A key difference between MedEdPORTAL Publications and iCollaborative or the CE Directory is that all tools within Publications include a comprehensive Instructor’s Guide. Key to the future successful implementation of your publication by others at their own institution is the reflective feedback that you provide in the Instructor’s Guide. Each of six criteria detailed in “Scholarship Assessed” should be addressed in the Instructor’s Guide and within the MedEdPORTAL Publications submission form.

Publications: Translating Criteria Criterion Description Publications Submission Form Questions Clear goals The author clearly states the goals of the work using educational objectives. Educational Objectives Adequate preparation The author uses prior work (e.g., existing scholarship and personal experience) to inform and develop the work. List any references used to create this work Appropriate methods The author uses a suitable approach to meet the stated objectives of the work. Describe any special implementation requirements or guidelines A key difference between MedEdPORTAL Publications and iCollaborative or the CE Directory is that all tools within Publications include a comprehensive Instructor’s Guide. Key to the future successful implementation of your publication by others at their own institution is the reflective feedback that you provide in the Instructor’s Guide. Each of six criteria detailed in “Scholarship Assessed” should be addressed in the Instructor’s Guide and within the MedEdPORTAL Publications submission form.

Publications: Translating Criteria Criterion Description Publications Submission Form Questions Clear goals The author clearly states the goals of the work using educational objectives. Educational Objectives Adequate preparation The author uses prior work (e.g., existing scholarship and personal experience) to inform and develop the work. List any references used to create this work Appropriate methods The author uses a suitable approach to meet the stated objectives of the work. Describe any special implementation requirements or guidelines Significant results The author achieves the goals and contributes to the field in a manner that invites others to use the work. Describe the effectiveness and significance of your work A key difference between MedEdPORTAL Publications and iCollaborative or the CE Directory is that all tools within Publications include a comprehensive Instructor’s Guide. Key to the future successful implementation of your publication by others at their own institution is the reflective feedback that you provide in the Instructor’s Guide. Each of six criteria detailed in “Scholarship Assessed” should be addressed in the Instructor’s Guide and within the MedEdPORTAL Publications submission form.

Publications: Translating Criteria Criterion Description Publications Submission Form Questions Clear goals The author clearly states the goals of the work using educational objectives. Educational Objectives Adequate preparation The author uses prior work (e.g., existing scholarship and personal experience) to inform and develop the work. List any references used to create this work Appropriate methods The author uses a suitable approach to meet the stated objectives of the work. Describe any special implementation requirements or guidelines Significant results The author achieves the goals and contributes to the field in a manner that invites others to use the work. Describe the effectiveness and significance of your work Effective presentation The author effectively organizes and presents the content of the work. Intended audience and Instructor’s Guide A key difference between MedEdPORTAL Publications and iCollaborative or the CE Directory is that all tools within Publications include a comprehensive Instructor’s Guide. Key to the future successful implementation of your publication by others at their own institution is the reflective feedback that you provide in the Instructor’s Guide. Each of six criteria detailed in “Scholarship Assessed” should be addressed in the Instructor’s Guide and within the MedEdPORTAL Publications submission form.

Publications: Translating Criteria Criterion Description Publications Submission Form Questions Clear goals The author clearly states the goals of the work using educational objectives. Educational Objectives Adequate preparation The author uses prior work (e.g., existing scholarship and personal experience) to inform and develop the work. List any references used to create this work Appropriate methods The author uses a suitable approach to meet the stated objectives of the work. Describe any special implementation requirements or guidelines Significant results The author achieves the goals and contributes to the field in a manner that invites others to use the work. Describe the effectiveness and significance of your work Effective presentation The author effectively organizes and presents the content of the work. Intended audience and Instructor’s Guide Reflective critique The author thoughtfully assesses the submission to refine, enhance, or expand the original concept. Describe any lessons learned A key difference between MedEdPORTAL Publications and iCollaborative or the CE Directory is that all tools within Publications include a comprehensive Instructor’s Guide. Key to the future successful implementation of your publication by others at their own institution is the reflective feedback that you provide in the Instructor’s Guide. Each of six criteria detailed in “Scholarship Assessed” should be addressed in the Instructor’s Guide and within the MedEdPORTAL Publications submission form.

Publications Rejection Reasons Insufficient educational context (not generalizable) Mismatch of educational objectives and instructional content Does not contribute to the field (e.g. superficial, reference materials) Failure to adequately address revisions There are four primary reasons why submissions are rejected by peer review. Three of the four reflect back to one of six criteria described in “Scholarship Assessed.” A submission may be rejected on the grounds of insufficient educational content. Additionally, if a submission that is not generalizable or cannot be repurposed to suit the needs of other users, it may be rejected. If an author has outlined educational objectives but they do not successfully transmit through the instructional content, the submission may be rejected. In this example, the author’s/educator’s desired goals do not match the outcomes reached. “Superficial” tools or resources that do not otherwise contribute to the field risk rejection. As we discussed earlier, a simple reference list is not sufficient for publication. Authors who fail to adequately address revisions requested by our peer reviewers, Associate Editors and Editor-in-Chief will risk rejection.

Table Exercise Is educational scholarship for MedEdPORTAL Publications accepted for P&T? Review the scholarship checklists As a team review volunteer’s resource against the peer review criteria.

Publications Publishing Process Submission Screening Peer Review Publish Once the author has completed preparing their materials, they are invited to submit for peer review through our external peer review management system called Manuscript Central. All correspondence between the author, staff, Associate Editors, peer reviewers and Editor-in-Chief takes place within this system. Upon receipt of the submission, MedEdPORTAL staff perform a preliminary review to ensure the material is within scope and meets MedEdPORTAL submission standards. To meet these standards, the submissions must have a comprehensive Instructor’s Guide and associated educational activities. A submission will be rejected prior to peer review if it is lacking in educational content to be considered “complete.” Examples of incomplete submissions lacking actual educational content syllabi, reference lists, or a course descriptions. In these cases, the author may be encouraged to submit their material to iCollaborative for further development. If a submission is considered complete, our Editorial staff then screen the submission for any potential copyright or patient privacy violations. MEP will not allow for any unauthorized third party material to enter the peer review process. The author must obtain explicit permission to include any material that is not their own in their publication or they must remove it. MEP staff with work with the author to get these issues taken care of and we provide permission release forms for the author’s to use. It is important to note that since MEP is globally accessible and materials are available for free of charge, indefinitely, MEP does not adhere to fair use. Once screening concerns are resolved, the submission enters the peer review process. Each submission receives the peer review from at least two content experts. If the submission successfully passes through peer review and is accepted, MedEdPORTAL staff catalogue and then publish the submission live to the site. The entire submission to publication process typically takes 3-4 months but it largely depends on the level of revisions that are required both at the point of screening and post peer review.

Publications Special Clearance Material access restricted to faculty members, instructors, or designate persons. Assessment tools Standardized Patient cases OSCE Exam materials When submitting to Publications, authors have the opportunity to restrict user role access to their publication. The Special Clearance Collection consists of publications that should only be made available to faculty educators and instructors, not students. An example of tools that reside in this collection include assessment tools, standardized patients and exam materials. When requesting access to such tools, users must provide a Human Resource's contact name and number who can verify that the user is holds a position of faculty. MedEdPORTAL staff call the institution to verify the faculty member’s credentials and position, then place the user on a “cleared” list so that they will have access to Special Clearance publications moving forward.

Publications iCollaborative CE Directory Purpose Recognize and advance educational scholarship Access peer reviewed, proven educational tools Share innovative approaches to transforming health care education Collaborate on tools in development Promote certified online continuing education activities Standards Stand alone module Clear learning objectives Classroom tested Ready for implementation Copyright/patient privacy compliance Accredited Online learning format Created by faculty/staff at a non-profit health institution Features Peer Reviewed Author usage reports Formal citation for scholarly credit Special clearance assessment tools Published indefinitely 5 star rating Threaded commentary Three year expiration Quick, searchable by content area Access online learning outside home institution/specialty Removed when expired MEP Peer Reviewed Yes No Formal Citation This final slide details the distinct features of each service within MedEdPORTAL. Publications was created as a venue for teaching faculty to receive recognition for their pieces of educational scholarship as well as to provide members with access to peer reviewed, proven educational tools. Publications are considered stand-alone teaching modules with clear learning objectives. They have been classroom tested and are ready for implementation by others. Published authors have access to real time usage reports and receive a formal citation for scholarly credit. Key features of Publications are the “Special Clearance” collection and the fact that tools are published indefinitely, similar to research articles published in a traditional print-based journal. iCollaborative was created for members to share innovative approaches to health care education and to collaborate on tools still in development. iCollaborative offers a 5-star rating feature and threaded commentary. Submitters do not receive a formal citation upon posting and their resource will be removed from the system after three years. Upon removal, MedEdPORTAL staff will contact the submitter and encourage him/her to submit a more recently updated version. Lastly, the CE Directory aims to promote continuing education activities that have been developed by faculty/staff at non-profit health organizations, certified by an accrediting body, and are available for completion through the online learning format. These activities are easily searchable through the same controlled vocabulary that is used across the entire website and will be removed when the activity expires.

Table Exercise Identify the top 5 most important things you learned today. Would you like to serve as a peer reviewer?

Questions? Thank you!