ERRATUM IN: Brazilian Journal of Medical Education, volume 49, issue 4

To determine the characteristics of medical education studies published in general and internal medicine (GIM) and medical education journals, and to analyze the accuracy of their indexing. The authors identified the five GIM and five medical education journals that published the most articles indexed in MEDLINE as medical education during January 2001 to January 2010. They searched Ovid MEDLINE for evaluative medical education studies published in these journals during this period and classified them as quantitative or qualitative studies according to MEDLINE indexing. They also examined themes and learner levels targeted. Using a random sample of records, they assessed the accuracy of study-type indexing. Of 4,418 records retrieved, 3,853 (87.2%) were from medical education journals and 565 (12.3%) were from GIM journals. Qualitative studies and program evaluations were more prevalent within medical education journals, whereas GIM journals published a higher proportion of clinical trials and systematic reviews (χ=74.28, df=3, P<.001). Medical education journals had a concentration of studies targeting medical students, whereas GIM journals had a concentration targeting residents; themes were similar. The authors confirmed that 170 (56.7%) of the 300 sampled articles were correctly classified in MEDLINE as evaluative studies. The majority of the identified evaluative studies were published in medical education journals, confirming the integrity of medical education as a specialty. Findings concerning the study types published in medical education versus GIM journals are important for medical education researchers who seek to publish outside the field's specialty journals.

Background: The advent of new medical education (ME) journals makes evident the growth of the field of ME. However, the nature and context of growth is undefined.Aim: To analyze the evolution of publication in ME.Methods: MEDLINE retrieval using medical subject headings was used to analyze patterns of ME publications from 1960–2010: changes in number of ME publications; number of journals publishing ME articles; co-topics occurring frequently in ME articles; differences among journals’ publication of co-topics.Results: Annual publication of ME articles increased from 279 in 1960 to 3760 in 2010. 81 531 articles were published in 4208 different journals. 104 journals published ME articles in 1960, 855 in 2010. Despite an increase in journals in all fields, ME journals now account for a larger proportion of all journals indexed in MEDLINE than in 1960. One-quarter of all ME articles were indexed as internship/residency; 16% as graduate ME; 15% as undergraduate ME; and 14% as continuing ME. The five journals that published the most ME articles distinguished themselves by publishing some topics with greater or less frequency.Conclusions: The increase in the number of ME publications and in the number of journals publishing ME articles suggests a supportive environment for a growing field; but variation in journals’ foci has implications for readers, editors and authors.

Medical and dental education share the common goal of preparing clinically competent and socially responsible health professionals. Despite this shared goal, the two disciplines have evolved as distinct academic fields, with limited empirical comparisons between them. Understanding their commonalities and differences can foster mutual development and cross-disciplinary collaboration. This study aims to compare research priorities in medical and dental education by analyzing author keywords from representative journals in each field. A bibliometric analysis was conducted using author keywords from two medical education journals (Advances in Health Sciences Education and BMC Medical Education) and two dental education journals (European Journal of Dental Education and Journal of Dental Education) over a 10-year period (2015-2024). Data were retrieved from the Web of Science database, including only original research articles and review articles. Frequency analysis of the top 10 author keywords was performed in 2-year intervals, and bump charts were created to visualize temporal ranking changes. In addition, co-occurrence network maps were constructed using all keywords appearing 10 or more times over the study period. Data processing and visualization were conducted using VOSviewer and Tableau software. A total of 9391 articles were analyzed, comprising 6806 articles from medical education journals and 2585 articles from dental education journals. Both fields consistently emphasized "students," "assessment," and "curriculum" as core research topics. However, medical education placed greater emphasis on "postgraduate medical education" and student mental health (e.g., empathy, resilience, and depression), whereas dental education focused more on "educational technology" and clinical skills development (e.g., simulation, virtual reality, and psychomotor skills). The keyword "covid-19" emerged prominently in both fields from 2019 to 2020 onward, reflecting the pandemic's transformative impact on education. "Interprofessional education" appeared as a shared emerging theme, suggesting growing recognition of collaborative practice needs. This study identifies both foundational commonalities and discipline-specific innovations in medical and dental education research over the past decade. These findings suggest that shared interests and distinctive priorities can lead to meaningful opportunities for collaborative educational development and joint research efforts across health professions education.

A Welcome to International Authors.

Strategies for Residents to Explore Careers in Medical Education.

education: current practices and opportunities. Acad Med 2008;83 (2):192–8. 8 Houpt ER, Pearson RD, Hall TL. Three domains of competency in global health education: recommendations for all medical students. Acad Med 2007;82 (3):222–5. 9 Evert J, Mautner D, Hoffman I. Developing global health curricula: a guidebook for US medical schools. In: Hall T, ed. Global Health Education Consortium 2006. San Francisco, USA: GHEC 2006, 32–8. 10 Cooke M, Irby DM, Sullivan W, Ludmerer KM. American medical education 100 years after the Flexner report. N Engl J Med 2006;355 (13):1339–44. 11 Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research. International opportunities in medical education. 2007. http://www.faimer. org/resources/opportunities/ index.html. [Accessed 4 July 2008.] 12 Rosenberg A. UC receives Gates Foundation grant to plan a School of Global Health. 2008. http:// www.universityofcalifornia.edu/ news/article/19077. [Accessed 19 February 2009.] 13 Mullan F. Doctors and soccer players – African professionals on the move. N Engl J Med 2007;356 (5):440–3. 14 What is health? The ability to adapt. Lancet 2009;373 (9666):781.

As AI use becomes more common in research, disclosure policies have emerged to ensure transparency and appropriateness. However, database research in other fields suggests that disclosure may lag behind AI use. Medical education journal editors report that submitted manuscripts rarely include AI-use disclosures, and they perceive a lack of clarity regarding when and how AI use should be disclosed. However, we lack objective evidence regarding the incidence and nature of AI-use disclosure in medical education. Using bibliometric methods, we searched a database of 24 leading medical education journals for articles published between January and July 2025 (n = 2,762 articles). Screening with Covidence software excluded 716 non-empirical and/or non-English language articles. The remainder (n = 2,046) were examined for the presence of AI-use disclosures, which were content-analyzed. 2.5% of empirical articles (n = 51) had an AI disclosure statement. BMC Medical Education contained the most disclosures (24), followed by Medical Teacher (7) and Journal of Surgical Education (4). Forty-two articles were authored in non-native English-speaking countries, and 69.4% of all first authors had begun publishing in the past decade. Disclosures averaged 43 words and described use superficially: most commonly "editing" and "translation". Of 18 named tools, ChatGPT was most common. Most disclosures explicitly attested to author responsibility for AI-produced material. Disclosures usually appeared in acknowledgements; those located in methods lacked responsibility attestation. Negative disclosures attesting that AI was not used were also present. AI-use disclosures in medical education journals are rare and appear mostly in work from non-native English-speaking regions of the world. A shared disclosure practice is evident: name the tool and affirm author responsibility, but describe use superficially. This suggests a practice of "safe" disclosure that may be more performative than informative, therefore failing to satisfy the goal of ensuring transparent and ethical AI use in research.

In recent years, the field of medical education has sought to amplify the voices of those from traditionally marginalised groups and medical education journals have sought to become more accessible and diverse. This study sought to examine the gender and geographical representation of editors and editorial board members in medical education journals. Information about individual editors and editorial board members of 10medical education journals was retrieved from their websites in January 2021, including their gender and the country in which they were based. Countries were categorised according to World Bank Income Classification and World Bank Geographical Regions. We then calculated the Composite Editorial Board Diversity Score for each journal. Of 488 editors and editorial board members, 283 (58.0%) were male, 452 (92.6%) were based in high-income countries and 322 (66.0%) were from the four countries with greatest representation (the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada). The composition of medical education journals' editorial leadership teams remains dominated by males and those from higher income and Western countries. Strikingly, little change has taken place since this was last examined 17years ago despite the field becoming apparently more globalised. As medical education strives to become a more inclusive and diverse discipline, developing policies to create more globally representative editorial leadership teams should now be an urgent priority.

Did You Catch These Non-JGME Medical Education Articles From 2022? Editors' Recommendations.

Interdisciplinary research, which integrates input (e.g., data, techniques, theories) from two or more disciplines, is critical for solving wicked problems. Medical education research is assumed to be interdisciplinary. However, researchers have questioned this assumption. The present study, a conceptual replication, clarifies the nature of medical education interdisciplinarity by analyzing the citations of medical education journal articles. The authors retrieved the cited references of all articles in 22 medical education journals between 2001-2020 from Web of Science (WoS). We then identified the WoS classifications for the journals of each cited reference. We analyzed 31,283 articles referencing 723,683 publications. We identified 493,973 (68.3%) of those cited references in 6,618 journals representing 242 categories, which represents 94% of all WoS categories. Close to half of all citations were categorized as "education, scientific disciplines" and "healthcare sciences and services". Over the study period, the number of references consistently increased as did the representation of categories to include a diversity of topics such as business, management, and linguistics. Our study aligns with previous research, suggesting that medical education research could be described as inwardly focused. However, the observed growth of categories and their increasing diversity over time indicates that medical education displays increasing interdisciplinarity. Now visible, the field can raise awareness of and promote interdisciplinarity, if desired, by seeking and highlighting opportunities for future growth.

A long-standing myth in medical education research is a divide between two different poles: research aiming to advance theory with little focus on practical applications ('ivory tower' research) and practically oriented research aiming to serve educators and decision-makers with little focus on advancing theory ('in-the-trenches' practice). We explored this myth in a sample of randomised medical education studies using Stokes' four-quadrant framework for the classification of research perspective. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Scopus for studies in medical education using a randomised design that were published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018. We used Stokes' four-quadrant framework to categorise the studies according to their use of theory, concepts and their justification for practical use. We compared medical education research published in medical education journals and clinical journals. A total of 150 randomised studies were included in the analysis. The largest segment of studies (46.7%) was categorised as use-inspired basic research (Pasteur's Quadrant), closely followed by pure applied research (40.7%, Edison's Quadrant). Only a few studies were categorised as aiming to advance knowledge with no thought for practical educational application (2.0%, Bohr's Quadrant). The proportion of studies that included educational concepts and theory differed according to publication in clinical journals or medical education journals: 40.5% vs 71.8%, respectively, P<.001. There were no differences between journals with regard to the proportion of studies that included a practical educational or clinical rationale (P=.99). In a large sample of studies using randomised designs, we found no evidence to support the myth that medical education research divides between two singular poles represented by 'ivory tower research' and 'in-the-trenches practice'. We did confirm prevailing assumptions regarding an emphasis on non-theoretical medical education research in clinical journals.

Henry Walton, who died on 13 July this year, aged 88 years, was an extraordinary man who made outstanding contributions to this journal and to medical education more widely. He edited the journal in its various forms for more than 30 years. It was his vision and drive that transformed the British Journal of Medical Education into the International Journal of Medical Education and then into, simply, Medical Education. The global reach and worldwide responsibilities of medical education lay at the heart of his work and his achievements. Henry grew up in South Africa and graduated from the medical school in Cape Town. After postgraduate training in London and New York, and subsequent to a short period back in South Africa, he was invited to take up a Chair in Psychiatry at the University of Edinburgh in 1963. His clinical research interests included suicidal behaviour, alcoholism and the inter-relationships of physical and mental illnesses presenting in general hospitals. From the outset of his career in Edinburgh, Henry devoted much of his time to research in higher education, completing a PhD in the teaching of psychiatry in the mid-1960s and helping to found the Society for Research in Higher Education in 1971. Within higher education, medical education was Henry’s passion. His role in creating and developing institutions devoted to improving medical education is unequalled: he was secretary and then president of the Association for the Study of Medical Education (ASME), a founder and the first president of the Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE), and a founder and first president of the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME). In 1986 the University of Edinburgh appointed Henry to the Chair in International Medical Education. In this role and as president of the WFME in 1988, Henry organised the World Congress in Medical Education that produced the Edinburgh Declaration. The 12 principles set out in that document have proved to be of great influence. In particular, they underpin the WFME global standards that represent a benchmark for quality in medical education and are applied directly or indirectly in countries across the world. Henry was honoured with many awards, notably the Gold Medal of the Albert Schweitzer Academy of Medicine in 2003. This list of achievements does not capture the unique style that Henry brought to all his activities. I had the privilege of working with Henry in both his clinical and educational spheres. He was gracious and charming in manner, but tenacious in the pursuit of his goal: his was a steel hand in a silk glove. Silk is an appropriate description; immaculate in his attire, Henry was never afraid to dress with an edge of flamboyance in the conservative world of medicine. Art collecting was the other enduring passion that Henry pursued with energy, determination and success. As in his dress, he was eclectic: his collection contained challenging examples of modern art, as well as drawings by various of the Old Masters and Chinese jade pieces. High quality was his only requirement for the decision to purchase. Variety and individuality attracted him in art, in psychiatry and in medical education. In his clinical work, Henry insisted on a rigorous personality description, as well as an illness diagnosis. In medical education, he was particularly interested in the learning that takes place in small groups. In all three spheres, he wished to understand the interactions of an individual with his or her specific context and environment. The quality of his art collection led to its acceptance in 2010 by the National Galleries for Scotland. Henry’s art collection is one of his legacies; the Edinburgh Declaration is another, but the third, in my view, is his greatest: Medical Education. This journal continually develops and changes because Henry set it free from the limitations and preoccupations of one country to enable it to become a forum for those interested in improving medical education, wherever they live and work.

In reporting the results of a survey on instruction in medical schools in the United States and Canada, published in the Journal of Medical Education in 1957 (Vol. 33, pp. 370-372), Carl Hopkins stated that biostatistics is here to stay as an essential part of the medical school curriculum (p. 370). This growing presence prompted a symposium at the 1967 annual meeting of the American Statistical Association (ASA) discussing ways to enhance the role of medical statistics in epidemiology in undergraduate medical education. One major outcome of the symposium, summarized and reported by Anita Bahn in the Journal of Medical Education in 1969 (Vol. 44, pp. 622-626), was the formation of an informal organization within the ASA Training Section (now the Section on Statistical Education) to promote communication among medical educators teaching statistics. Specific goals of the informal group were to (a) exchange ideas on content and methods of teaching, (b) collect resource problems suitable for teaching and articles from the current literature as examples of both good and poor research methods, (c) develop a roster of teachers of statistics in medical and nursing schools, and (d) organize formal meetings on topics relevant to the teaching of statistics. Bahn followed through on the recommendations of the 1967 symposium by writing to her colleagues at other medical schools and proposing an informal meeting of interested teachers of statistics at the 1969 ASA annual meeting. A group of 40 medical-school representatives subsequently met at the annual meeting and, after discussing the objectives to be met by the formation of a permanent group, voted unanimously to seek establishment of a separate subsection within the ASA Training Section. Bylaws were written, and the subsection came into official being in 1970. The subsection's spiritual and actual debt to Bahn's initial organizing efforts grew as she became the first chair of the subsection and the (albeit unofficial at that point in time) first editor of a newsletter that was to grow into an important communication tool, subsequently called the Newsletter of the Subsection on Teaching of Statistics in the Health Sciences. Paul Leaverton served as the subsection's first secretary. (A complete list of officers appears in Table 1.) Several of the initial activities of the new subsection included some that continue today. Theodore (Ted) Colton and Jan Kuzma headed a survey group to learn how, when, and by whom statistics was being taught in medical schools, Table 1. Officers for the Subsection on Teaching of Statistics in the Health Sciences

Editorial: Methods used by different countries and medical schools for selecting medical students.

Over the past seven years, educational innovations and scholarship have flourished at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) School of Medicine. Prior to 1998, there was no infrastructure to support educational research and yet a few faculty members published in medical education journals and were active in national professional associations. With the initiation of curriculum reform in 1998, a great deal of excitement about education was generated and innovative new educational programs were envisioned. These changes became opportunities for educational scholarship. With the development of an Office of Medical Education in 1997 and the Haile T. Debas Academy of Medical Educators in 2001, the infrastructure was in place to expand educational research and the scholarship of teaching. The components of this support include educational leadership, faculty development, the Teaching Scholars Program, the Office of Educational Research and Development, the Academy, a Fellowship in Medical Education Research, collaborative research, and extramural grants. As a result of these investments, the number of UCSF faculty members who are involved in educational research has increased significantly. There has been a four-fold increase in peer-reviewed articles published in medical education journals and a greater increase in the publication of educational abstracts, editorials, chapters, and books, plus presentations at U.S. professional association meetings. In this article, the authors describe the changes that have occurred at UCSF to achieve these results.