Submited on: 13 Sep 2016 03:09:21 PM GMT
Published on: 14 Sep 2016 11:44:01 AM GMT
 
Overall Review of Scholarly Article
Posted by Ms. Annah Baykal on 20 Nov 2016 08:16:58 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The idea that "give-then-take" rather than "take-then-give" in regards to undergraduate and medical school student research would require minimum wage reimbursement for student time, effort, and expertise. There are many reasons why someone would be interested in pursuing research, in many residency and fellowship programs the ACGMA and AOA require it, whereas medical students and undergraduates are usually hoping to obtain a match per their desires in the next step of the educational process. Research funds need to be allocated to paying these students either by focusing on projects that demonstrate actual innovative pursuits rather than ones created to fulfill a requirement, from medical school tuition if research is a required class/elective, or increased support from the general public/government/private funding. Funding and the proper use of funds for research is an ongoing dilemma and relevant to all groups involved in participating or sponsoring research. 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    These claims are not novel necessarily, as monetary compensation for students’ time and intellect has been discussed thoroughly with regards to scholarships and stipends. However, the motivations behind why undergraduate students and medical student participate in research and their benefit towards research teams is novel. Furthermore, the difference in doing research as merely a fulfillment for requirement rather than for the goal of knowing, innovating, or creating was enlightening. 


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes, many papers regarding the motivations and impact of medical students’ involvement in research were referenced and discussed. 


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    NA


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    A comparison in the quality of work produced by students who were paid versus volunteer would be helpful to determining whether or not a "take-then-give" or a "give-then-take" approach really benefits the research team and the advancement of science and medicine. 


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Quantitative and qualitative data through relevant experimentation is needed to back up the ideas presented in this paper. 


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    .

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    .

  • How to cite:  Baykal A .Overall Review of Scholarly Article [Review of the article '"Paid" Medical Research For Students: Time For Minimum-Wage Medical Research Internships ' by Gupta D].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003324
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Overall Review of Scholarly Article
Posted by Ms. Annah Baykal on 19 Nov 2016 07:28:28 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The idea that "give-then-take" rather than "take-then-give" in regards to undergraduate and medical school student research would require minimum wage reimbursement for student time, effort, and expertise. There are many reasons why someone would be interested in pursuing research, in many residency and fellowship programs the ACGMA and AOA require it, whereas medical students and undergraduates are usually hoping to obtain a match per their desires in the next step of the educational process. Research funds need to be allocated to paying these students either by focusing on projects that demonstrate actual innovative pursuits rather than ones created to fulfill a requirement, from medical school tuition if research is a required class/elective, or increased support from the general public/government/private funding. Funding and the proper use of funds for research is an ongoing dilemma and relevant to all groups involved in participating or sponsoring research. 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    These claims are not novel necessarily, as monetary compensation for students’ time and intellect has been discussed thoroughly with regards to scholarships and stipends. However, the motivations behind why undergraduate students and medical student participate in research and their benefit towards research teams is novel. Furthermore, the difference in doing research as merely a fulfillment for requirement rather than for the goal of knowing, innovating, or creating was enlightening. 


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes, many papers regarding the motivations and impact of medical students’ involvement in research were referenced and discussed. 


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    NA


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    A comparison in the quality of work produced by students who were paid versus volunteer would be helpful to determining whether or not a "take-then-give" or a "give-then-take" approach really benefits the research team and the advancement of science and medicine. 


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Quantitative and qualitative data through relevant experimentation is needed to back up the ideas presented in this paper. 


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    N/A

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Baykal A .Overall Review of Scholarly Article[Review of the article '"Paid" Medical Research For Students: Time For Minimum-Wage Medical Research Internships ' by Gupta D].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003320
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse