Med ed papers

[Guest]

What is the point of papers like these: https://thejns.org/view/journals/j-neuro...211600.xml


Thank you, captains obvious, for pointing out the obvious? I think a ten year old not even in neurosurgery could predict this?

[Guest]

It’s not just med ed, it’s a lot of papers in JNS and Neurosurgery. Survey based, bibliometric, very loosely related to neurosurgery is the name of the game recently.

[Guest]

Sure some of the results seem obvious, but we don't do science on what's obvious. We don't restructure the most important process around recruiting the next generation of neurosurgery based on what a couple of old guys in power think we should do, obvious or not. This paper simply reached out to applicants to get their views on the application process, with regards to the covid generated changes. What's wrong with that?
If the SNS just restructures the match without any data on what programs, as well as applicants, think, everyone will be mad either. So what's the hate here?
There certainly are a bunch of studies that seem to be useless or obvious, although I hate when the latter is mentioned as criticism, I don't think this one necessarily belongs to that cohort.

[Guest]

(11-29-2021, 04:14 PM)Guest Wrote: Sure some of the results seem obvious, but we don't do science on what's obvious... What's wrong with that?

I think we're all getting tired of people cashing in on the whole "my paper looks COVID plz accept" aspect. Some of the most interesting papers I've read over the last 5 years have been these med ed papers. But this has little to no value to anyone other than the authors getting to put it on their CVs.

[Guest]

The point of papers like this isn’t to bring to light new information nobody has heard of, it’s to ask “why aren’t we doing this already”.

[Guest]

Lol that poor med student who pissed everyone off about the surveys didn't even get recognized as first author. Shame.

[Guest]

What about this paper: https://thejns.org/view/journals/j-neuro...211063.xml

I think these type of publications help give some transparency to the process. It's crazy the ratings of med students that are shown in this, going to be a big problem once step 1 goes to pass fail.

---

(12-04-2021, 11:56 AM)Guest Wrote: What about this paper: https://thejns.org/view/journals/j-neuro...211063.xml

I think these type of publications help give some transparency to the process. It's crazy the ratings of med students that are shown in this, going to be a big problem once step 1 goes to pass fail.

Very useful paper. Someone needed to shed light on how much of a farce those ratings are

[Guest]

(12-04-2021, 11:56 AM)Guest Wrote: What about this paper: https://thejns.org/view/journals/j-neuro...211063.xml

I think these type of publications help give some transparency to the process. It's crazy the ratings of med students that are shown in this, going to be a big problem once step 1 goes to pass fail.

---

(12-04-2021, 11:56 AM)Guest Wrote: What about this paper: https://thejns.org/view/journals/j-neuro...211063.xml

I think these type of publications help give some transparency to the process. It's crazy the ratings of med students that are shown in this, going to be a big problem once step 1 goes to pass fail.

Very useful paper. Someone needed to shed light on how much of a farce those ratings are

 
I saw this on my Twitter feed. With step 1 becoming pass fail, and everyone's evaluation showing that they're the most amazing applicants it's going to be hard to distinguish applicants unless step 2 scores are used instead. This culture of everyone is amazing and we should stop using test scores is getting out of hand... surprised a field like neurosurgery is also complicit in this