gms | German Medical Science

Research in Medical Education – Chances and Challenges International Conference

20.05. - 22.05.2009, Heidelberg

About this meeting

I. Preamble

Dear Colleagues,

As chairs of the review committee, we are delighted to present you with 68 interesting, diverse, and high-quality contributions at the congress "Research in Medical Education - Changes and Challenges". The congress contributions cover an inspiring thematic spectrum of project and research work.
This book of abstracts is designed to give you the opportunity to thematically prepare yourself and read up on specific details before attending individual sessions, or, in the case of particular interest, to get in touch with the author of the corresponding abstract. We would further like to use this volume to inform you about the review process which took place as well as the review criteria which were employed. In recognition and appreciation of their work, all reviewers are mentioned by name.
Our thanks go first and foremost to the congress organization committee which assigned us with the demanding task of managing the review process. It was with pleasure that we accepted this challenge. Further thanks are due, above all, to the authors who present their project and research work and who, in doing so, provide valuable impulses for the scientific exchange of ideas in the field of medical education. We are also highly grateful to the reviewers for their willingness to critically appraise the congress contributions.
We hope that you will enjoy the congress "Research in Medical Education - Changes and Challenges", that it will be a fruitful time of scientific exchange among researchers, and that reading this book of abstracts will prove thought-provoking and enjoyable.

On behalf of the review committee
Dr. Sören Huwendiek and Dr. Christoph Nikendei
Chairs of the review committee

II.Review Process

In the following, we would like to describe the review process in order to increase the transparency of reviewer decisions in the evaluation of congress contributions:

24 reviewers agreed upon request to take part in the review process. Each contribution was evaluated by two reviewers. Reviewers were provided with a pre-defined list of criteria which served as a basis for evaluating the quality of the contributions. The list comprised six domains, each of which could be awarded up to 5 points by each reviewer. A maximum of 30 points was thus achievable (see Section III. Review Criteria).
In line with specifications of the congress organization committee, 40 contributions were selected for presentation in lecture form. Selection was based on abstract rankings assigned according to the mean score of the criteria-based points awarded by the 2 reviewers. Exceptions were cases in which abstract authors explicitly requested presentation in the form of a poster. All remaining abstracts were accepted for poster presentation regardless of author requests. It was not necessary to reject any of the submitted abstracts.
In our view, the procedure outlined above allowed a reliable and transparent review process.

III. Review Criteria

In the following, the criteria list upon which the review process was based and which comprised 6 evaluation categories is presented. Reviewers were permitted to award up to 5 points for each category, so that each contribution could achieve a maximum of 30 points. The final score for individual contributions was calculated as the average of both reviewer scores.

Evaluation category
1. Development of the topic (max. 5 points)
Does the contribution provide an adequate overview of the current state of scientific research?
Is the research question at hand logically derived?
2. Research question (max. 5 points)
Does the research question conceivably emerge from the current state of scientific research?
Is the research question clearly formulated?
Is the research question answerable?
3. Quality of the study design / Methods (max. 5 points)
Can the research question be addressed using the selected methodology?
How high is the quality of the employed methods?
(Description without data / qualitative data based on free texts /
qualitative methodology according to Grounded Theory or Mayring /
descriptive quantitative data / longitudinal comparative study /
controlled study / review: literature search)
4. Results (max. 5 points)
Do the results contribute important insights in the respective field of research?
5. Implications of the research work (max. 5 points)
Does the research work carry implications beyond the immediate institute of higher education (national / international implications)?
6. Abstract quality (max. 5 points)
What qualities do the abstract show in terms of form and language (style, language, professional presentation)?
Total score (maximum 30 points)

IV. Reviewer

We are most grateful to the reviewers listed below for their work in reviewing approximately 5 abstracts:

Thomas Böker-Blum, Heidelberg, Germany
Hans-Martin Bosse, Heidelberg, Germany
Bas de Leng, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Peter Dieckmann, Tübingen, Germany
Götz Fabry, Freiburg, Germany
Martin Fischer, Witten-Herdecke, Germany
Karim Gawad, Hamburg, Germany
Waltraud Georg, Berlin, Germany
Stefan Herzig, Cologne, Germany
Matthias Hofer, Düsseldorf, Germany
Bert Huenges, Bochum, Germany
Markus Krautter, Heidelberg, Germany
Martin Lischka, Wien, Austria
Ralph Nawrotzki, Heidelberg, Germany
Christoph Nikendei, Heidelberg, Germany
Falk Ochsendorf, Frankfurt, Germany
Christian Schirlo, Zurich, Switzerland
Kai Schnabel, Berlin, Germany
Jobst-Hendrik Schultz, Heidelberg, Germany
Dirk Sommerfeld, Hamburg, Germany
Matthias Siebeck, Munich, Germany
Robin Stark, Saarbrücken, Germany
Stefan Titz, Heidelberg, Germany
Peter Weyrich, Tübingen, Germany