Last updated on

Academic Medicine
Latest Impact Factor IF - Analysis · Trend · Prediction · Ranking


User Feedback

Journal Impact IF

2021-2022

6.893

28.7%

Journal Impact IF Trend

Researchain
One-click to visualize your research performance

Researchain
One-click to visualize your research performance

Researchain
One-click to visualize your research performance

Researchain
One-click to visualize your research performance

Popular Journals

Highly Cited Articles

Academic Medicine

High Impact Research Articles
Publication Title Author Listing
Publication Title Author Listing
· · · · ·
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
· · ·
· · · ·
· · · ·
· · · ·
· · · ·
·
· ·
· · · · ·
·
· ·
· · · · ·
· ·
· · · · ·
· · · ·
· · · · ·
· · ·
· · ·
· · · ·
· · · ·
· · · · · · · · · ·
· · ·
· · · · ·
· · ·
· · · ·
· · · · · · · ·
· ·
· ·
· · · · · · · · · · · ·
· ·
· · ·
· · · · · ·
· ·
· · ·
· ·
· ·
· · · · · · ·
· · · · ·
· · · · · ·
· · ·
· · · · ·
· · ·
· · · · ·

Highly Cited Keywords

Academic Medicine

High Impact Research Keywords

Journal Impact IF Ranking

Academic Medicine

Journal Impact IF Ranking
Subcategory Quartile Rank Percentile
Education Q1 70/1319

Education 94%

Journal Impact IF Ranking

· In the Education research field, the Quartile of Academic Medicine is Q1. Academic Medicine has been ranked #70 over 1319 related journals in the Education research category. The ranking percentile of Academic Medicine is around 94% in the field of Education.

Related Journals

Academic Medicine

Similar Journals

Academic Medicine

The 2021-2022 Journal Impact IF of Academic Medicine is 6.893, which is just updated in 2022.

Academic Medicine Impact Factor
Highest IF
6.893
Highest Journal Impact IF

The highest Journal Impact IF of Academic Medicine is 6.893.

Lowest IF
3.06
Lowest Journal Impact IF

The lowest Journal Impact IF of Academic Medicine is 3.06.

Total Growth Rate
95.6%
IF Total Growth Rate

The total growth rate of Academic Medicine IF is 95.6%.

Annual Growth Rate
9.6%
IF Annual Growth Rate

The annual growth rate of Academic Medicine IF is 9.6%.

Journal Impact IF History

Academic Medicine

Journal Impact IF Trend

Year Journal Impact IF
Year Journal Impact IF
2022-2023 Check our Real-Time Impact Factor and Impact Factor Prediction Results
2020-2021 6.893
2019-2020 5.354
2018-2019 4.937
2017-2018 4.801
2016-2017 5.255
2015-2016 4.194
2014-2015 3.06
2013-2014 3.468
2012-2013 3.292
2011-2012 3.524
Journal Impact IF History

· The 2020-2021 Journal Impact IF of Academic Medicine is 6.893
· The 2019-2020 Journal Impact IF of Academic Medicine is 5.354
· The 2018-2019 Journal Impact IF of Academic Medicine is 4.937
· The 2017-2018 Journal Impact IF of Academic Medicine is 4.801
· The 2016-2017 Journal Impact IF of Academic Medicine is 5.255
· The 2015-2016 Journal Impact IF of Academic Medicine is 4.194
· The 2014-2015 Journal Impact IF of Academic Medicine is 3.06
· The 2013-2014 Journal Impact IF of Academic Medicine is 3.468
· The 2012-2013 Journal Impact IF of Academic Medicine is 3.292
· The 2011-2012 Journal Impact IF of Academic Medicine is 3.524

Academic Medicine

Journal Key Metrics
Journal Title Academic Medicine
ISSN 1040-2446
ISSN (Online) 1938-808X
Publisher
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd.
Publication Frequency
Monthly
Coverage
1940-1941, 1945, 1953-1956, 1959, 1961, 1964-2020
Open Access
NO
Language
English
Highest Impact Factor (2011 - 2022) 6.893
Lowest Impact Factor (2011 - 2022) 3.06
Total Impact Factor IF Growth Rate (2011 - 2022) 95.6%
Avarage Impact Factor IF Growth Rate (2011 - 2022) 9.6%
Annual Impact Factor IF Growth Rate (2021 - 2022) 28.7 %
Publication Fees
Homepage
Submit Manuscript

Academic Medicine

Impact Factor 2022-2023 Prediction
Academic Medicine Impact Factor Predition System

Academic Medicine Impact Factor Prediction System is now online. You can start share your valuable insights with the community.

Predict Check All Preditions

What is Impact Factor?

The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic journal is a scientometric index calculated by Clarivate that reflects the yearly average number of citations of articles published in the last two years in a given journal. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher impact factor values are often deemed to be more important, or carry more intrinsic prestige in their respective fields, than those with lower values.

Academic Medicine | Academic Accelerator - About the Impact Factor

Impact factor is commonly used to evaluate the relative importance of a journal within its field and to measure the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular time period. Journal which publishes more review articles will get highest IFs. Journals with higher IFs believed to be more important than those with lower ones. According to Eugene Garfield “impact simply reflects the ability of the journals and editors to attract the best paper available.” Journal which publishes more review articles will get maximum IFs. The Impact Factor of an academic journal is a scientometric Metric that reflects the yearly average number of citations that recent articles published in a given journal received. It is frequently used as a Metric for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher Impact Factor are often deemed to be more important than those with lower ones. The Academic Medicine Impact Factor IF measures the average number of citations received in a particular year (2021) by papers published in the Academic Medicine during the two preceding years (2019-2020). Note that 2021 Impact Factor are reported in 2022; they cannot be calculated until all of the 2021 publications have been processed by the indexing agency. New journals, which are indexed from their first published issue, will receive an impact factor after two years of indexing; in this case, the citations to the year prior to Volume 1, and the number of articles published in the year prior to Volume 1, are known zero values. Journals that are indexed starting with a volume other than the first volume will not get an impact factor until they have been indexed for three years. Occasionally, Journal Citation Reports assigns an impact factor to new journals with less than two years of indexing, based on partial citation data. The calculation always uses two complete and known years of item counts, but for new titles one of the known counts is zero. Annuals and other irregular publications sometimes publish no items in a particular year, affecting the count. The impact factor relates to a specific time period; it is possible to calculate it for any desired period. In addition to the 2-year Impact Factor, the 3-year Impact Factor, 4-year Impact Factor, 5-year Impact Factor, Real-Time Impact Factor can provide further insights and factors into the impact of Academic Medicine.

History

The impact factor was devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Impact factors are calculated yearly starting from 1975 for journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). ISI was acquired by Thomson Scientific & Healthcare in 1992, and became known as Thomson ISI. In 2018, Thomson ISI was sold to Onex Corporation and Baring Private Equity Asia. They founded a new corporation, Clarivate, which is now the publisher of the JCR.

Use

The impact factor is used to compare different journals within a certain field. The Web of Science indexes more than 11,500 science and social science journals. Journal impact factors are often used to evaluate the merit of individual articles and individual researchers. This use of impact factors was summarised by Hoeffel:

Impact Factor is not a perfect tool to measure the quality of articles but there is nothing better and it has the advantage of already being in existence and is, therefore, a good technique for scientific evaluation. Experience has shown that in each specialty the best journals are those in which it is most difficult to have an article accepted, and these are the journals that have a high impact factor. Most of these journals existed long before the impact factor was devised. The use of impact factor as a measure of quality is widespread because it fits well with the opinion we have in each field of the best journals in our specialty....In conclusion, prestigious journals publish papers of high level. Therefore, their impact factor is high, and not the contrary.

Eugene Garfield

In brief, Impact factors may be used by:
  • Authors to decide where to submit an article for publication.
  • Libraries to make collection development decisions
  • Academic departments to assess academic productivity
  • Academic departments to make decisions on promotion and tenure.
As impact factors are a journal-level metric, rather than an article- or individual-level metric, this use is controversial. Garfield agrees with Hoeffel,but warns about the "misuse in evaluating individuals" because there is "a wide variation [of citations] from article to article within a single journal". Other things to consider about Impact Factors:
  • Many journals do not have an impact factor.
  • The impact factor cannot assess the quality of individual articles. Even if citations were evenly distributed among articles, the impact factor would only measure the interests of other researchers in an article, not its importance and usefulness.
  • Only research articles, technical notes and reviews are “citable” items. Editorials, letters, news items and meeting abstracts are “non-citable items”.
  • Only a small percentage of articles are highly cited and they are found in a small subset of journals. This small proportion accounts for a large percentage of citations.
  • Controversial papers, such as those based on fraudulent data, may be highly cited, distorting the impact factor of a journal.
  • Citation bias may exist. For example, English language resources may be favoured. Authors may cite their own work.
Moreover, informed and careful use of these impact data is essential, and should be based on a thorough understanding of the methodology used to generate impact factors. There are controversial aspects of using impact factors:
  • It is not clear whether the number of times a paper is cited measures its actual quality.
  • Some databases that calculate impact factors fail to incorporate publications including textbooks, handbooks and reference books.
  • Certain disciplines have low numbers of journals and usage. Therefore, one should only compare journals or researchers within the same discipline.
  • Review articles normally are cited more often and therefore can skew results.
  • Self-citing may also skew results.
  • Some resources used to calculate impact factors have inadequate international coverage.
  • Editorial policies can artificially inflate an impact factor.
Impact factors have often been used in advancement and tenure decision-making. Many recognize that this is a coarse tool for such important decisions, and that a multitude of factors should be taken into account in these deliberations. When considering the use of the impact factor (IF), keep these aspects in mind:
  • IF analysis is limited to citations from the journals indexed by the Web of Science/Web of Knowledge. Currently, the Web of Science indexes only 8621 journals across the full breadth of the sciences, and just 3121 in the social sciences.
  • A high IF/citation rate says nothing about the quality -- or even, validity -- of the references being cited. Notorious or even retracted articles often attract a lot of attention, hence a high number of citations. The notority related to the first publication on "cold fusion" is one such example.
  • Journals that publish more "review articles" are often found near the top of the rankings. While not known for publishing new, creative findings, these individual articles tend to be heavily cited.
  • The IF measures the average number of citations to articles in the journal -- given this, a small number of highly-cited articles will skew the figure.
  • It takes several years for new journals to be added to the list of titles indexed by the Web of Science/Web of Knowledge, so these newer titles will be under-represented.
  • It's alleged that journal editors have learned to "game" the system, encouraging authors to cite their works previously published in the same journal.
Comparing Journals Across Disciplines? Not a good idea! Using Impact Factors within a given discipline should only be done with great care, as described above. Using impact factor data to compare journals across disciplines is even more problematic. Here are some of the reasons:
  • Disciplines where older literature is still referenced, such as Chemistry and Mathematics, offer challenges to the methodolgy since older citations (older than two years) are not used to calculate the impact factor for a given journal. (Five-year impact factor analysis, which can be calculated using the Journal Citation Index database, helps smooth out this problem only to some degree.)
  • Different disciplines have different practices regarding tendency to cite larger numbers of references. Higher overall citation rates will bump upward impact factor measurements.
  • Where it's common for large numbers of authors to collaborate on a single paper, such as in Physics, the tendency of authors to cite themselves (and in this case, more authors) will result in increased citation rates.

Pros and Cons of the Impact Factor

Pros:

  • A vetted, established metric for measuring journal impact within a discipline.
  • Designed to eliminate bias based on journal size and frequency.
Cons:
  • Individual articles makes an uneven contribution to overall Impact Factor.
  • Impact Factor does not account for certain things, things like context (postive or negative citaion) and intentionality (self-citation).
  • The metric is proprietary to and bound by the contents of the Thomson Reuters database.
  • Citations, on which the Impact Factor is based, count for less than 1% of an article's overall use.

Criticism

Numerous critiques have been made regarding the use of impact factors. A 2007 study noted that the most fundamental flaw is that impact factors present the mean of data that are not normally distributed, and suggested that it would be more appropriate to present the median of these data. There is also a more general debate on the validity of the impact factor as a measure of journal importance and the effect of policies that editors may adopt to boost their impact factor (perhaps to the detriment of readers and writers). Other criticism focuses on the effect of the impact factor on behavior of scholars, editors and other stakeholders. Others have made more general criticisms, arguing that emphasis on impact factor results from negative influence of neoliberal policies on academia claiming that what is needed is not just replacement of the impact factor with more sophisticated metrics for science publications but also discussion on the social value of research assessment and the growing precariousness of scientific careers in higher education.
Experts stress that there are limitations in using impact factors to evaluate a scholar's work. There are many reasons cited for not relying on impact factor alone to evaluate the output of a particular individual. Among these are the following:

  • A single factor is not sufficient for evaluating an author's work.
  • Journal values are meaningless unless compared within the same discipline. Impact factors vary among disciplines.
  • The impact factor was originally devised to show the impact of a specific journal, not a specific scholar. The quality and impact of the author's work may extend beyond the impact of a particular journal.
According to Jim Testa, a researcher for ThomsonReuters Scientific, the most widespread misuse of the Impact Factor is to evaluate the work of an individual author (instead of a journal). "To say that because a researcher is publishing in a certain journal, he or she is more influential or deserves more credit is not necessarily true. There are many other variables to consider." (interview 6/26/2008 in Thomson Reuters blog entry)

Academic Medicine
Journal Profile

About

Academic Medicine is the official, peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. The journal serves as an international forum for the exchange of ideas, information, and strategies to address the major challenges facing the academic medicine community as it strives to carry out its missions in the public interest. The journal’s areas of focus include: education and training issues; health and science policy; institutional policy, management, and values; research practice; and clinical practice in academic settings. None

ISSN
1040-2446
ISSN

The ISSN of Academic Medicine is 1040-2446 . An ISSN is an 8-digit code used to identify newspapers, journals, magazines and periodicals of all kinds and on all media–print and electronic.

ISSN (Online)
1938-808X
ISSN (Online)

The ISSN (Online) of Academic Medicine is 1938-808X . An ISSN is an 8-digit code used to identify newspapers, journals, magazines and periodicals of all kinds and on all media–print and electronic.

Publisher
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd.
Publisher

Academic Medicine is published by Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd. .

Publication Frequency
Monthly
Publication Frequency

Academic Medicine publishes reports Monthly .

Coverage
1940-1941, 1945, 1953-1956, 1959, 1961, 1964-2020
Coverage

The Publication History of Academic Medicine covers 1940-1941, 1945, 1953-1956, 1959, 1961, 1964-2020 .

Open Access
NO
Open Access

Publication Fees
Publication Fees

Language
English
Language

The language of Academic Medicine is English .

Country/Region
United States
Country/Region

The publisher of Academic Medicine is Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd. , which locates in United States .

International Collaboration Trend

Academic Medicine

Cited Documents Trend

Academic Medicine

Total Publications
19892
Total Citations
415933

Annual Publication Volume

Academic Medicine

Annual Citation Record

Academic Medicine

Publications Cites Dataset

Academic Medicine

Year Publications Citations
Year Publications Citations
1926 18 0
1927 46 0
1928 47 0
1929 43 5
1930 37 0
1931 37 1
1932 42 1
1933 32 1
1934 34 4
1935 22 0
1936 37 3
1937 22 1
1938 37 3
1939 24 9
1940 36 4
1941 39 5
1942 30 1
1943 40 13
1944 27 5
1945 42 1
1946 31 3
1947 63 6
1948 73 11
1949 43 9
1950 17 15
1951 55 9
1952 33 13
1953 97 20
1954 122 44
1955 82 17
1956 120 32
1957 77 28
1958 100 15
1959 164 43
1960 105 45
1961 145 86
1962 131 97
1963 123 85
1964 165 81
1965 137 187
1966 133 150
1967 141 162
1968 133 147
1969 206 175
1970 152 274
1971 144 222
1972 191 253
1973 248 235
1974 243 335
1975 259 354
1976 224 525
1977 194 532
1978 217 853
1979 186 778
1980 219 963
1981 182 969
1982 195 1025
1983 186 1065
1984 179 999
1985 171 1167
1986 177 1258
1987 178 1312
1988 162 1477
1989 223 1528
1990 280 1724
1991 281 1720
1992 277 1838
1993 317 1781
1994 333 2297
1995 327 2279
1996 440 2825
1997 420 3562
1998 416 3417
1999 451 4459
2000 458 5883
2001 460 6417
2002 407 8073
2003 294 8297
2004 290 10420
2005 269 10873
2006 318 12451
2007 257 13802
2008 286 14297
2009 504 16745
2010 506 17716
2011 425 19506
2012 417 22241
2013 448 23836
2014 455 25361
2015 449 26260
2016 490 26326
2017 669 26510
2018 422 20237
2019 557 23904
2020 796 31465
2021 55 1750
Publications Cites Dataset

· The Academic Medicine has published 18 reports and received 0 citations in 1926.
· The Academic Medicine has published 46 reports and received 0 citations in 1927.
· The Academic Medicine has published 47 reports and received 0 citations in 1928.
· The Academic Medicine has published 43 reports and received 5 citations in 1929.
· The Academic Medicine has published 37 reports and received 0 citations in 1930.
· The Academic Medicine has published 37 reports and received 1 citations in 1931.
· The Academic Medicine has published 42 reports and received 1 citations in 1932.
· The Academic Medicine has published 32 reports and received 1 citations in 1933.
· The Academic Medicine has published 34 reports and received 4 citations in 1934.
· The Academic Medicine has published 22 reports and received 0 citations in 1935.
· The Academic Medicine has published 37 reports and received 3 citations in 1936.
· The Academic Medicine has published 22 reports and received 1 citations in 1937.
· The Academic Medicine has published 37 reports and received 3 citations in 1938.
· The Academic Medicine has published 24 reports and received 9 citations in 1939.
· The Academic Medicine has published 36 reports and received 4 citations in 1940.
· The Academic Medicine has published 39 reports and received 5 citations in 1941.
· The Academic Medicine has published 30 reports and received 1 citations in 1942.
· The Academic Medicine has published 40 reports and received 13 citations in 1943.
· The Academic Medicine has published 27 reports and received 5 citations in 1944.
· The Academic Medicine has published 42 reports and received 1 citations in 1945.
· The Academic Medicine has published 31 reports and received 3 citations in 1946.
· The Academic Medicine has published 63 reports and received 6 citations in 1947.
· The Academic Medicine has published 73 reports and received 11 citations in 1948.
· The Academic Medicine has published 43 reports and received 9 citations in 1949.
· The Academic Medicine has published 17 reports and received 15 citations in 1950.
· The Academic Medicine has published 55 reports and received 9 citations in 1951.
· The Academic Medicine has published 33 reports and received 13 citations in 1952.
· The Academic Medicine has published 97 reports and received 20 citations in 1953.
· The Academic Medicine has published 122 reports and received 44 citations in 1954.
· The Academic Medicine has published 82 reports and received 17 citations in 1955.
· The Academic Medicine has published 120 reports and received 32 citations in 1956.
· The Academic Medicine has published 77 reports and received 28 citations in 1957.
· The Academic Medicine has published 100 reports and received 15 citations in 1958.
· The Academic Medicine has published 164 reports and received 43 citations in 1959.
· The Academic Medicine has published 105 reports and received 45 citations in 1960.
· The Academic Medicine has published 145 reports and received 86 citations in 1961.
· The Academic Medicine has published 131 reports and received 97 citations in 1962.
· The Academic Medicine has published 123 reports and received 85 citations in 1963.
· The Academic Medicine has published 165 reports and received 81 citations in 1964.
· The Academic Medicine has published 137 reports and received 187 citations in 1965.
· The Academic Medicine has published 133 reports and received 150 citations in 1966.
· The Academic Medicine has published 141 reports and received 162 citations in 1967.
· The Academic Medicine has published 133 reports and received 147 citations in 1968.
· The Academic Medicine has published 206 reports and received 175 citations in 1969.
· The Academic Medicine has published 152 reports and received 274 citations in 1970.
· The Academic Medicine has published 144 reports and received 222 citations in 1971.
· The Academic Medicine has published 191 reports and received 253 citations in 1972.
· The Academic Medicine has published 248 reports and received 235 citations in 1973.
· The Academic Medicine has published 243 reports and received 335 citations in 1974.
· The Academic Medicine has published 259 reports and received 354 citations in 1975.
· The Academic Medicine has published 224 reports and received 525 citations in 1976.
· The Academic Medicine has published 194 reports and received 532 citations in 1977.
· The Academic Medicine has published 217 reports and received 853 citations in 1978.
· The Academic Medicine has published 186 reports and received 778 citations in 1979.
· The Academic Medicine has published 219 reports and received 963 citations in 1980.
· The Academic Medicine has published 182 reports and received 969 citations in 1981.
· The Academic Medicine has published 195 reports and received 1025 citations in 1982.
· The Academic Medicine has published 186 reports and received 1065 citations in 1983.
· The Academic Medicine has published 179 reports and received 999 citations in 1984.
· The Academic Medicine has published 171 reports and received 1167 citations in 1985.
· The Academic Medicine has published 177 reports and received 1258 citations in 1986.
· The Academic Medicine has published 178 reports and received 1312 citations in 1987.
· The Academic Medicine has published 162 reports and received 1477 citations in 1988.
· The Academic Medicine has published 223 reports and received 1528 citations in 1989.
· The Academic Medicine has published 280 reports and received 1724 citations in 1990.
· The Academic Medicine has published 281 reports and received 1720 citations in 1991.
· The Academic Medicine has published 277 reports and received 1838 citations in 1992.
· The Academic Medicine has published 317 reports and received 1781 citations in 1993.
· The Academic Medicine has published 333 reports and received 2297 citations in 1994.
· The Academic Medicine has published 327 reports and received 2279 citations in 1995.
· The Academic Medicine has published 440 reports and received 2825 citations in 1996.
· The Academic Medicine has published 420 reports and received 3562 citations in 1997.
· The Academic Medicine has published 416 reports and received 3417 citations in 1998.
· The Academic Medicine has published 451 reports and received 4459 citations in 1999.
· The Academic Medicine has published 458 reports and received 5883 citations in 2000.
· The Academic Medicine has published 460 reports and received 6417 citations in 2001.
· The Academic Medicine has published 407 reports and received 8073 citations in 2002.
· The Academic Medicine has published 294 reports and received 8297 citations in 2003.
· The Academic Medicine has published 290 reports and received 10420 citations in 2004.
· The Academic Medicine has published 269 reports and received 10873 citations in 2005.
· The Academic Medicine has published 318 reports and received 12451 citations in 2006.
· The Academic Medicine has published 257 reports and received 13802 citations in 2007.
· The Academic Medicine has published 286 reports and received 14297 citations in 2008.
· The Academic Medicine has published 504 reports and received 16745 citations in 2009.
· The Academic Medicine has published 506 reports and received 17716 citations in 2010.
· The Academic Medicine has published 425 reports and received 19506 citations in 2011.
· The Academic Medicine has published 417 reports and received 22241 citations in 2012.
· The Academic Medicine has published 448 reports and received 23836 citations in 2013.
· The Academic Medicine has published 455 reports and received 25361 citations in 2014.
· The Academic Medicine has published 449 reports and received 26260 citations in 2015.
· The Academic Medicine has published 490 reports and received 26326 citations in 2016.
· The Academic Medicine has published 669 reports and received 26510 citations in 2017.
· The Academic Medicine has published 422 reports and received 20237 citations in 2018.
· The Academic Medicine has published 557 reports and received 23904 citations in 2019.
· The Academic Medicine has published 796 reports and received 31465 citations in 2020.
· The Academic Medicine has published 55 reports and received 1750 citations in 2021.
· The total publications of Academic Medicine is 19892.
· The total citations of Academic Medicine is 415933.

Share Your Impact Factor Information with Community

Do you know the Latest Impact Factor of Academic Medicine? Share with the community!

Impact Factor

What is the Latest Impact Factor?

Data Source

Where do you get the information?



Impact Factor Data Source
Impact Factor Data Source
6.893 BioxBio

Thanks for sharing your information with us!

Academic Medicine - DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003092
Can Better Selection Tools Help Us Achieve Our Diversity Goals in Postgraduate Medical Education? Comparing Use of USMLE Step 1 Scores and Situational Judgment Tests at 7 Surgical Residencies

Aimee K Gardner · Katelyn J Cavanaugh · Ross E Willis · Brian J Dunkin ·

Psychology Medicine
PDF

Academic Medicine - DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003059
Honoring Medicine’s Social Contract: A Scoping Review of Critical Consciousness in Medical Education

Annalisa Manca · Gerard J Gormley · Jennifer L Johnston · Nigel D Hart ·

Psychology Medicine
PDF

Academic Medicine - DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003145
Do Professionalism Lapses in Medical School Predict Problems in Residency and Clinical Practice?

Edward Krupat · Jules L Dienstag · Susan L Padrino · John E Mayer · Miles F Shore · Aaron Young · Humayun J Chaudhry · Stephen R Pelletier · Ben Y Reis ·

Medicine Psychology
PDF

The eDoctor initiative, which is led by gynaecologist Jehan Ara Ainuddin from Dow University of Health Sciences in Karachi, is targeting 35 000 women doctors who trained in Pakistani medical schools but have never entered clinical practice, often because of the restrictions placed on women by ….

Pakistan attracts 700 female doctors back into practice through online service [10.1136/bmj.l6752]


Participating medical homes agreed to provide data on the number of children screened, number of referrals made, criteria for referral, and follow-up notes regarding examination outcomes.

Amblyopia Elimination Project: Pediatric Medical Home-Based Community Vision Screening. [10.3928/01913913-20190308-01]


It is shown that creation of a system for assessing the formation of professional competency of future maritime specialists by means of web technologies is a powerful mechanism for introducing a competency approach in higher maritime education.

ОЦІНЮВАННЯ КОГНІТИВНОГО КОМПОНЕНТУ ПРОФЕСІЙНИХ КОМПЕТЕНТНОСТЕЙ ЗАСОБАМИ LMS MOODLE У ПІДГОТОВЦІ МОРСЬКИХ ФАХІВЦІВ [10.33407/itlt.v72i4.2467]


Data findings showed that eventhough their education backgrounds were not suitable with the subject they teach, they will welcome conveniently the offerred breakthrough.

Preserving The Uniqueness of English Teaching at Early Childhood Education [10.4108/EAI.27-4-2019.2285319]


Department of Biochemistry, Radioimmunology and Experimental Medicine, The Children’s Memorial Health Institute, Warsaw, Poland, 2 Sunlight, Nutrition, and Health Research Center, San Francisco, CA, United States, Department of Pediatric Rheumatology, Immunology, and Metabolic Bone Diseases, Medical University of Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland, Department of Medicine, Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.

Editorial: Classic and Pleiotropic Actions of Vitamin D [10.3389/fendo.2019.00341]


Objective To study the clinical effect of external application of traditional Chinese medicine combined with alprostadil in the treatment of lower extremity arterial occlusive disease.

Traditional Chinese medicine combined with alprostadil for lower extremity arterial occlusive disease [10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1007-1245.2019.19.004]

Scientific Writng Keywords