CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9Academic Writing and PublishingAcademic Publishing and Open AccessInnovations in Medical Education

Improving Academic Writing in a Low-Resource Country: A Systematic Examination of Online Peer-Run Training

Open access
Hanafi, Ibrahem, Kheder, Kheder, Sabouni, Rami, Gorra Al Nafouri, Maarouf, Hanafi, Bayan, Alsalkini, Marah, Kenjrawi, Yazan, Albkhetan, Huda +1 more·2025·Teaching and Learning in Medicine
DOI 10.1080/10401334.2024.2332890

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Introduction:Syrian medical research synthesis is marginal compared to neighboring countries and faces numerous obstacles that have been intensified by the Syrian armed conflict. Perceived research barriers include the lack of mentorship and academic writing skills. We evaluate the outcomes of a peer-run academic writing and publishing workshop, and contrast training synchronicity and its supplementary peer-reviewed assignments. Methods:This randomized controlled trial studied an online workshop that targeted under- and post-graduate medical and paramedical students at all Syrian universities. Blinded participants were randomized into four arms; Two arms attended the workshop synchronously, and the others asynchronously. One arm in each group undertook peer-reviewed scientific writing exercises (active), while the other two self-reviewed the same exercises (passive). Objective knowledge and subjective confidence in the learnt skills were assessed before the workshop, and one month and one year after it.Results: One-hundred-twenty-one participants completed the workshop, which was effective in improving their knowledge (P<0.001) and confidence (P<0.001). The post-course measures of the synchronous and asynchronous groups were similar. Completing the assignments resulted in higher knowledge (P=0.005) and confidence (P=0.003) only in the active groups. Moreover, participants who joined the peer-review process gained higher knowledge (P<0.001). At one-year-follow-up, the participants showed stability of the objective and subjective gains.Conclusion:The investigated training was beneficial regardless of the methods of attendance (i.e., synchronicity). Participation in supplementary exercises, especially when associated with peer-review, improved knowledge and confidence. This workshop proves a utilizable effective cheap alternative to improve scientific writing skills with limited resources and expertise.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10401334.2024.2332890

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A mere two studies examined academic writing competence before and after peer feedback, offering a more objective assessment.

    “A mere two studies examined the academic writing competence before and after the application of peer feedback (e.g., Hanafi et al., 2024; Ramon-Casas et al., 2019), thereby offering a more objective assessment of the skill enhancement.”

    From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Hanafi et al., 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Abbas, F., Sawaf, B., Hana , I., Hajeer, M. Y., Zakaria, M. I., Abbas, W., & Alabdeh, F., and Nazir Ibrahim (2018). Peers versus Professional Training of Basic Life Support in Syria: A Randomized Controlled Trial. BMC Medical Education, 18(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12909-018-1241-Z/TABLES/6 · DOI
  2. Crome, M., Rahman, A., Iversen, R. M., & Anne-Katrin, L. (2021). Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Education: Questionnaire-Based Survey in Dental Medicine during the COVID-19 Pandemic**. Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift International |, 3(5), https://doi.org/10.3238/dzz-int.2021.0025 · DOI
  3. Fabriz, S., & Mendzheritskaya, J., and Sebastian Stehle (2021). Impact of Synchronous and Asynchronous Settings of Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education on Students' Learning Experience During COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 (October), 4544. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.733554/BIBTEX · DOI
  4. Geithner, C. A., & Alexandria, N. P. (2016). Doing Peer Review and Receiving Feedback: Impact on Scienti c Literacy and Writing Skills. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(1), 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1152/ADVAN.00071.2015/SUPPL_FILE/APPENDIX_3.PDF · DOI
  5. Phadtare, A., Bahmani, A., & Shah, A., and Ricardo Pietrobon (2009). Scienti c Writing: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Standard and on-Line Instruction. BMC Medical Education, 9(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-27/TABLES/3 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hanafi, I., Kheder, K., Sabouni, R., Gorra Al Nafouri, M., Hanafi, B., Alsalkini, M., Kenjrawi, Y., Albkhetan, H., & Alhalabi, M.
Affiliations
  • Damascus University (SY)
  • Al Andalus University (SY)
  • Faculty of Medicine, Damascus University
  • Homs University (SY)
  • Latakia University (SY)
Corresponding author
Hanafi, Ibrahem
ORCID
Venue
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2024-03-29
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
388-402
ISSN
  • 1040-1334 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-8015
DOI
10.1080/10401334.2024.2332890
OpenAlex
W4393317658
Cited by
9
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4
FWCI
13.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Teaching and Learning in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
academic writing, scientific writing skills, online writing workshops, peer review, plagiarism, publication process, resource-limited settings, synchronous and asynchronous learning, practical exercises, writing confidence, medical trainees
MeSH terms
Developing Countries, Humans, Male, Peer Group, Syria, Writing, Education, Distance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review