Peer Support of a Faculty “Writers' Circle” Increases Confidence and Productivity in Generating Scholarship

Published:January 27, 2015DOI:

      Rationale and Objectives

      Publishing is critical for academic medicine career advancement. Rejection of manuscripts can be demoralizing. Obstacles faced by clinical faculty may include lack of time, confidence, and optimal writing practices. This study describes the development and evaluation of a peer-writing group, informed by theory and research on faculty development and writing.

      Materials and Methods

      Five clinical-track radiology faculty members formed a “Writers' Circle” to promote scholarly productivity and reflection on writing practices. Members decided to work with previously rejected manuscripts. After members' initial meeting, interactions were informal, face to face during clinical work, and online. After the first 6 months, an anonymous survey asked members about the status of articles and evaluations of the writing group.


      Ten previously rejected articles, at least one from each member, were submitted to the Circle. In 6 months, four manuscripts were accepted for publication, five were in active revision, and one was withdrawn. All participants (100%) characterized the program as worth their time, increasing their motivation to write, their opportunities to support scholarly productivity of colleagues, and their confidence in generating scholarship.


      Peer-support writing groups can facilitate the pooling of expertise and the exchange of recommended writing practices. Our peer-support group increased scholarly productivity and provided a collegial approach to academic writing.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Derish P.
        • Maa J.
        • Ascher N.
        • et al.
        Enhancing the mission of academic surgery by promoting scientific writing skills.
        J Surg Res. 2007; 140: 177-183
        • Steinert Y.
        • McLeod P.
        • Liben S.
        • et al.
        Writing for publication in medical education: the benefits of a faculty development workshop and peer writing group.
        Med Teach. 2008; 30: e280-e285
        • Cameron C.
        • Chang S.
        • Pagel W.
        Scientific English: a program for addressing linguistic barriers of international research trainees in the United States.
        J Canc Educ. 2011; 26: 72-78
        • Edwards K.
        Peer support of scholarly activity.
        Acad Med. 2002; 77: 939
        • Pololi L.
        • Knight S.
        • Dunn K.
        Facilitating scholarly writing in academic medicine: lesions learned form a collaborative peer mentoring program.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2004; 19: 64-68
        • Ray J.
        • Berkwits M.
        • Davidoff F.
        The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medicine journal.
        Am J Med. 2000; 109: 131-135
        • Okike K.
        • Kocher M.
        • Nwachukwu B.
        • et al.
        The fate of manuscripts reject by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94: e130-e145
        • Ten Cate T.
        • Kusurkar R.
        • Williams G.C.
        How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching learning processes in medical education. AMEE guide No. 59.
        Med Teach. 2011; 33: 961-973
        • Kusurkar R.
        • Croiset G.
        • ten Cate O.
        Twelve tips to stimulate intrinsic motivation in students through autonomy-supportive classroom teaching derived from self-determination theory.
        Med Teach. 2011; 33: 978-982
        • Bordage G.
        Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports.
        Acad Med. 2001; 76: 889-896
        • Ehara S.
        • Takahashi K.
        Reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to AJR by international authors.
        AJR. 2007; 188: 113-116
        • Martínez R.
        • Floyd R.
        • Erichsen L.
        Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: recommendations for increasing scholarly productivity.
        J Sch Psychol. 2011; 49: 691-720
        • Venketasubramanian N.
        • Hennerici M.
        How to handle a rejection: teaching course presentation in the 21st European Stroke Conference, Lisboa, May 2012.
        Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013; 35: 209-212
        • Eva K.
        The reviewer is always right: peer review of research in Medical Education.
        Med Educ. 2009; 43: 2-4
        • Woolley K.
        • Barron P.
        Handing manuscript rejection: insights from evidence and experience.
        Chest. 2009; 135: 573-577
        • Steinert Y.
        • Mann K.
        • Centeno A.
        • et al.
        A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education. BEME Guide No. 8.
        Med Teach. 2006; 28: 497-526
        • Sonnad S.
        • Goldsack J.
        • McGowan K.
        A writing group for female assistant professors.
        J Natl Med Assoc. 2011; 103: 811-815
        • Schwellnus H.
        • Carnahan H.
        What are the key components necessary in peer coaching? A scoping review.
        Med Teach. 2014; 36: 38-46
        • McGaghie W.
        Scholarship, publication, and career advancement in health professions education: AMEE Guide No. 43.
        Med Teach. 2009; 31: 574-590
        • Camp M.
        • Escott B.
        Authorship proliferation in the orthopaedic literature.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95 (1–5): e44
        • Ferrer R.
        • Katerndahl D.
        Predictors of short-term and long-term scholarly activity by academic faculty: a departmental case study.
        Fam Med. 2002; 34: 455-461
        • Eloy J.
        • Svider P.
        • Mauro K.
        • et al.
        Impact of fellowship training on research productivity in academic otolaryngology.
        Laryngoscope. 2012; 122: 2690-2694
        • Kempainen R.
        • McKone E.
        • Rubenfeld G.
        • et al.
        Comparison of scholarly productivity of general and subspecialty clinical-educators in Internal Medicine.
        Teach Learn Med. 2004; 16: 323-328
        • Boice R.
        • Jones F.
        Why academicians don’t write.
        J Higher Educ. 1984; 55: 567-582
        • Hekelman F.
        • Gilchrist V.
        • Zyzanski S.
        • et al.
        An educational intervention to increase faculty publication productivity.
        Fam Med. 1995; 27: 255-259
        • Katerndahl D.
        Co-evolution of departmental research collaboration and scholarly outcomes.
        J Eval Clin Pract. 2012; 18: 1241-1247