How to impart scientific knowledge and writing skills? Digital education in the COVID-19 pandemic

IntroductionIn order to make a virtue out of necessity by establishing a digital teaching curriculum in ORL during the Covid-19 pandemic, we created the concept of a new digital scientific seminar. In this study, we present the students’ evaluation of the seminar focusing on digital and scientific skills acquisition. MethodsWe included 265 students in our prospective monocentric questionnaire study. The seminar started with an introduction on the criteria of a good publication, followed by the individual task of understanding the publication on a main ORL topic and writing its abstract. After the seminar students completed the evaluation questionnaire. ResultsOverall results showed that students rated the seminar well. Free-text comments added that although live teaching was preferred, students found their digital and scientific competence increased through the task of writing a publication abstract on their own. Conclusion Digital education was not only rated well, but satisfied the students’ wish for digital transformation and likewise fulfilled the national goals of competence-based education. Digital competence and skills convey data literacy in medical education and scientific education.

Editorial

It gives me a great pleasure to announce the second regular issue of 2021. I want to thank all authors for contributing their sound research and the editorial board for the highly valuable reviews and comments for improvements. These contributions together with the generous support of the consortium members sustain the quality of our journal. I would still like to expand our editorial board: If you are a tenured Associate Professor or above with a good publication record, please apply to join our editorial board. We are also interested in receiving high quality proposals for special issues covering new topics and emerging trends. Please think of yourself and encourage your colleagues to submit high quality articles to our journal. In this regular issue, I am very pleased to introduce three accepted papers from three different countries. Alessia D’Andrea, Maria Chiara Caschera, Fernando Ferri, and Patrizia Grifoni from Italy introduce in their research MuBeFE, a Multimodal Behavioural Features Extraction Method based on Hidden Markov Models, which allows to extract information such as communicative intention, the social style and personality traits. Güldem Alev Özkök from Turkey aims in her research to model the process of data visualization (DV) and design to facilitate computational thinking (CT) of secondary- level students. Uyara Ferreira Silva and Deller James Ferreira from Brazil present a systematic literature review based on 400 articles of the literature on productive dialogues and emotional aspects in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), and they also address emotional aspects used in debates with conflicting points of view in other contexts.

Effective Initiation and Treatment With Basal Insulin in People With Type 2 Diabetes: Focus on Mitigating Hypoglycemia in Patients at Increased Risk

<p>Many people with type 2 diabetes are treated with insulin with the goal of achieving a specific A1C target. In this short video series, an expert panel moderated by John Anderson, MD, discusses approaches to optimizing basal insulin initiation and treatment in people with type 2 diabetes, including those patients most at risk (e.g., those with renal impairment and older adults), with a focus on reaching A1C goals while mitigating the risk for hypoglycemia.</p><p>The panel discusses how considerations for the management of hypoglycemia are important in these patients. When used appropriately, the risk of hypoglycemia with basal insulin analogs can be reduced while still achieving individualized glycemic goals.</p><p>The videos can be viewed in their entirety here, and an executive summary of the panel’s recommendations is available on the <em>Clinical Diabetes</em> website at <a href="https://doi.org/10.2337/cd20-0035">https://doi.org/10.2337/cd20-0035</a>.</p><p>This peer-reviewed publication was developed in adherence with <a href="http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2424869/good-publication-practice-communicating-company-sponsored-medical-research-gpp3" target="_blank">Good Publication Practice (GPP3)</a> guidelines. All authors meet the <a href="http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html" target="_blank">International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)</a> criteria for authorship and have disclosed all potential <a href="https://clinical.diabetesjournals.org/content/basal-insulin-videos#DIS">conflicts of interest</a>.</p>

Effective Initiation and Treatment With Basal Insulin in People With Type 2 Diabetes: Focus on Mitigating Hypoglycemia in Patients at Increased Risk

<p>Many people with type 2 diabetes are treated with insulin with the goal of achieving a specific A1C target. In this short video series, an expert panel moderated by John Anderson, MD, discusses approaches to optimizing basal insulin initiation and treatment in people with type 2 diabetes, including those patients most at risk (e.g., those with renal impairment and older adults), with a focus on reaching A1C goals while mitigating the risk for hypoglycemia.</p><p>The panel discusses how considerations for the management of hypoglycemia are important in these patients. When used appropriately, the risk of hypoglycemia with basal insulin analogs can be reduced while still achieving individualized glycemic goals.</p><p>The videos can be viewed in their entirety here, and an executive summary of the panel’s recommendations is available on the <em>Clinical Diabetes</em> website at <a href="https://doi.org/10.2337/cd20-0035">https://doi.org/10.2337/cd20-0035</a>.</p><p>This peer-reviewed publication was developed in adherence with <a href="http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2424869/good-publication-practice-communicating-company-sponsored-medical-research-gpp3" target="_blank">Good Publication Practice (GPP3)</a> guidelines. All authors meet the <a href="http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html" target="_blank">International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)</a> criteria for authorship and have disclosed all potential <a href="https://clinical.diabetesjournals.org/content/basal-insulin-videos#DIS">conflicts of interest</a>.</p>

On peer reviewing: how to nourish an author’s mind and win a JLDHE editor’s heart

Editors and publishers of scholarly journals rarely agree on what makes for a good publication; they do, however, agree on the need for a robust peer review process as a crucial means to judge the merits of potential publications. While fraught with issues and inefficiencies, a critical and supportive peer review is not only what editors rely on when assessing scholarship presented for publication but also what authors hope for in order to improve their work. Understanding how peer review may best serve all parties involved: authors, editors, and reviewers, is thus at the heart of this article. The analysis offered here is based on a session the Journal for Learning Development in Higher Education editors gave at the 2020 LD@3 seminar series, entitled ‘The Art of Reviewing’. It explores the different aspects of the peer review process while formulating recommendations regarding best practices and outlining JLDHE initiatives for supporting reviewers’ vital work.

A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region

Numerous recommendations and guidelines aim to improve the quality, timeliness and transparency of medical publications. However, these guidelines use ambiguous language that can be challenging to interpret, particularly for speakers of English as a second language. Cultural expectations within the Asia-Pacific region raise additional challenges and several studies have suggested that awareness and application of ethical publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region is relatively low compared with other regions. However, guidance on applying ethical publication practice guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region is lacking. This commentary aims to improve publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region by providing guidance on applying the 10 principles of the Good Publication Practice 3 (GPP3) guidelines and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship. Recommendations are provided for encore presentations, applying the ICMJE authorship criteria in the context of regional cultural expectations, and the role of study sponsors and professional medical writers. Ongoing barriers to compliance with guidelines are also highlighted, and additional guidance is provided to support authors submitting manuscripts for publication. The roles of regional journals, regulatory authorities and professional bodies in improving practices are also discussed.

A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 Guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region

Numerous recommendations and guidelines aim to improve the quality, timeliness and transparency of medical publications. However, these guidelines use ambiguous language that can be challenging to interpret, particularly for speakers of English as a second language. Cultural expectations within the Asia-Pacific region raise additional challenges. Several studies have suggested that awareness and application of ethical publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region is relatively low compared with other regions. However, guidance on applying ethical publication practice guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region is lacking. This review aims to improve publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region by providing guidance on applying the 10 principles of the Good Publication Practice 3 (GPP3) guidelines and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship. Recommendations are provided for encore presentations, applying the ICMJE authorship criteria in the context of regional cultural expectations, and the role of study sponsors and professional medical writers. Ongoing barriers to compliance with guidelines are also highlighted, and additional guidance is provided to support authors submitting manuscripts for publication. The roles of regional journals, regulatory authorities and professional bodies in improving practices are also discussed.

A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 Guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region

Numerous recommendations and guidelines aim to improve the quality, timeliness and transparency of medical publications. However, these guidelines use ambiguous language that can be challenging to interpret, particularly for speakers of English as a second language. Cultural expectations within the Asia-Pacific region raise additional challenges. Several studies have suggested that awareness and application of ethical publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region is relatively low compared with other regions. However, guidance on applying ethical publication practice guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region is lacking. This review aims to improve publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region by providing guidance on applying the 10 principles of the Good Publication Practice 3 (GPP3) guidelines and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship. Recommendations are provided for encore presentations, applying the ICMJE authorship criteria in the context of regional cultural expectations, and the role of study sponsors and professional medical writers. Ongoing barriers to compliance with guidelines are also highlighted, and additional guidance is provided to support authors submitting manuscripts for publication. The roles of regional journals, regulatory authorities and professional bodies in improving practices are also discussed.