'Right for publication': another strategy to promote publications by novice authors.

Abstract

Scholarly writing is important both academically and clinically. The project of Paliadelis et al. supports novice writers to publish papers in rural medical university settings, including funded ‘workshops for writing’ and ‘off-campus overnight retreats for paper completion’. The number of ‘under review’ papers doubled, an amazing outcome. We commend the authors for their impressive results. Herein we summarise our 5-year project as a slightly different publication support system. The ‘Right for Publication’ (RFP) project and ours have similarities and differences. Jichi Medical University (JMU) graduates doctors who work in rural Japan. Many JMU graduates working in rural areas with little opportunity to receive advice on publishing, reported frequently experiencing ‘wrote a paper, rejection and trashcan’. We then established the Clinical Research Support Team (CRST)–Jichi in 2010. The JMU faculty, as a group of experienced authors, supports JMU graduates to write papers, free of charge, as described previously. A ‘client’ obtains support for publishing a paper by sending an email request to the CRST office, which is then forwarded to all 138 CRST members who are experienced investigators and authors. This prompts one or two to ‘raise their hand’, based on the topic and personal time constraints. Over the past 5 years, 28 papers under CRST support were published in peer-reviewed journals. The differences between the CRST and the RFP project are: (1) the CRST is conducted by email, whereas the RFP project is face-to-face; (2) in the CRST, one or two experienced authors support a client until final publication of the paper and become a co-author, whereas this is not clear in the RFP project; and (3) CRST is not funded, whereas the RFP project is funded. Email-based mentoring is an important part of the CRST because clients are often geographically isolated. We believe that supporting the novice author until publication and the supporter becoming a co-author are of paramount importance for the project’s success. Although being responsible until publication may be seen as a burden, publications are important for career building and thus the supporter becoming a co-author may be a strong incentive to help novice authors. A client may feel comfortable knowing that the paper will finally be published, putting aside a journal’s impact factor. Thus, a win–win relationship is created. In the RFP project, three to four experienced authors became mentors for eight to 12 novices at each retreat. We are wondering whether the mentors are responsible until final publication. Coaching or mentoring is one thing and being responsible until publication, as a co-author, is another. We are not claiming that our system is better. Each system should be developed based on the situation and ‘culture’ at each university. We found strong resemblances between the two systems in terms of unanticipated benefits. Similar to the RFP project, a strong collegial relationship is created not only between graduates and supporters, but also among CRST supporters. A more collaborative research culture has also been created both among university faculty and graduates. The CRST may have removed the ‘hidden curtain’ between university faculty and graduates, many of whom work in remote areas.