AIMSThis course aims to provide students with knowledge and practice in terms of:1. use of scientific language to communicate ideas and results (scientific writing);2. definition of a project from a research topic with the formulation of research hypotheses grounded in relevant literature on the theme;3. critical and comprehensive collection of information relevant to a project;4. synthesis of information collected in a review work quality in terms of: a. writing; b. framework; c. content;5. production of a non-systematic internationally publishable literature review (minimum: Journal of Young Investigators -
BEFORE STARTING THE COURSEIt is expected that the students read scientific journals frequently and have identified at least one research line in which they plan to invest for the graduation.
AT THE END OF THE COURSEStudents will be able to:1. write scientific outlines and projects applying the rules of scientific writing;2. structure scientific ideas suitably for communication to peers and different target audiences;3. identify different types of scientific publications and the structure, wording and format requirements underlying each type;4. document and develop searching strategies to retrieve scientific literature;5. use collaborative software to organize, retrieve and cite bibliography;6. use collaborative writing methods;7. synthesize primary information in different formats;8. describe and analyze critically the peer review process;9. adapt scientific communication to the target audience and publication.
This course does not provide credentials for the exercise of medicine for those without appropriate training, recognition and registered at the "Ordem dos Médicos".
The 13th Research Methodologies course will be held from
March 7th to 24th, 2022.
Click here to download the detailed programme.
Searching PubMed - NCBI youtube tutorials: www.youtube.com/user/ncbinlm- Haig, A., & Dozier, M. (2003). BEME Guide No. 3: Systematic searching for evidence in medical education - Part 2: Constructing searches. Medical Teacher, 25(5), 463-484. doi: 10.1080/01421590310001608667.
Peer review - Baxt, W. G., Waeckerle, J. F., Berlin, J. A., & Callaham, M. L. (1998). Who Reviews the Reviewers? Feasibility of Using a Fictitious Manuscript to Evaluate Peer Reviewer Performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine, (SEPTEMBER), 310-317. - Benos, D. J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J. M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M., et al. (2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in physiology education, 31, 145-152. doi: 10.1152/advan.00104.2006.- Jefferson, T. (2002). Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2784-2786. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2784.- Phadtare, A., Bahmani, A., Shah, A., & Pietrobon, R. (2009). Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction. BMC Medical Education, 9, 1-9. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-9-27.
Structuring a paper - O’Connor, T. R., & Holmquist, G. P. (2009). Article Algorithm for Writing a Scientific Manuscript. English, 37(6), 344-348. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20329.- Rangachari, P. K., & Mierson, S. (2009). A checklist to help students analyze published articles in basic medical sciences. Advances in Physiology Education, 268, 21-25.
Registration will open soon.
For further information, please contact