CFS: Healing Arts Feature (J of General Internal Med)

The Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) is seeking submissions for a narrative medicine feature entitled Healing Arts. Submissions may be solicited or unsolicited, and will be peer reviewed.

They seek two types of high quality work:

• Text and Context consists of excerpts from literature (novels, short stories, poetry, plays or creative non-fiction) of 200-800 words and an accompanying essay of up to 1000 words discussing the meaning of the work and linking it to the clinical or medical education literature. May include up to 3 learning objectives/discussion questions and up to 5 references, including an appropriately detailed reference of the creative work.

• Materia Medica consists of well-crafted, highly readable and engaging personal narratives, essays or short stories of up to 1500 words and poetry of up to 100 lines. These pieces should focus on a given experience, person or event which informs or illuminates the practice or teaching of medicine. Submissions may be written by or from the point of view of the patient, health care provider, family member, teacher, investigator, or trainee. If non-fiction, please either mask the subject’s identity or gain their permission prior to submission.

In addition they seek submissions for a special issue, Chronic Care and Education (deadline 2 November 2009).

Material may be submitted electronically here: Please contact the editors with questions.

Richard L. Kravitz, MD, MSPH, UC Davis Division of General Medicine, 4150 V. Street, Suite 2400 PSSB, Sacramento, CA 95817, Email:

Mitchell D. Feldman, MD, MPhil, UCSF Division of General Internal Medicine,  400 Parnassus Ave., 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94143-0320, Email:


Chronicle: Is the Peer-Review System Broken?

Daniel J. Myers, professor of sociology and associate dean for research, graduate studies, and centers in the College of Arts and Letters at the University of Notre Dame writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, says that the peer-review system (both for journals and book publishers) is not working, overwhelming many faculty with excessive review requests. He concludes:

All of the above issues are contributing to an overload of reviews, and we aren’t dealing with them. . . . For the journals [that professional organizations] control, they should impose standards that editors and reviewers must follow. These should include: (1) a proportion of papers that must be rejected without review, (2) a limit on the number of reviews solicited for each paper, (3) a substantial reduction in the percentage of authors invited to resubmit, and (4) a requirement that authors who have published in, or submitted to, the journal must review manuscripts.

The article is available to subscribers on the Chronicle‘s Web site.

Podcast: Michele Lamont on the Curious World of Academic Judgment

Michele Lamont, author of How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (Harvard University Press), a study of how scholars and scholarly panels actually engage in review of submissions (like research proposals and grant applications), is interviewed in a podcast produced by Harvard University Press.

Chronicle: Publication in High-Impact Journals Is Found to Reinforce Advantage

Briefly noted in the Chronicle of Higher Education (26 Aug 2009) on line:
A study by researchers at the University of Quebec at Montreal has affirmed that the principle of the rich get richer applies in the world of academic publishing, finding that papers published in high-impact journals collect about twice as many citations as do virtually identical articles published in journals with lower impact ratings.”

A Message from Canadian Healthcare Professionals to Americans

In this video, Canadian physicians and nurses describe the real Canadian healthcare system to Americans (not the cartoon Canadian health care portrayed in some American media and public discourse).

CFS: Women’s Health (BRN)

BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH FOR NURSING (Integrating Biobehavioral Research into Health Care)

SPECIAL ISSUE: Women’s Health Across the Lifespan

Guest Editors: Margaret McLean Heitkemper, PhD, RN, FAAN; Carol A. Landis, DNSc, RN, FAAN; Nancy F. Woods, PhD, RN, FAAN

Deadline: September 15, 2009

Health disparities between men and women start at the beginning of life, with fewer male infants than female surviving their first year. Through the remaining lifespan, men and women experience illness and disease differently, culminating in a shorter lifespan for men than women but more morbidity in old age among women than among men. Challenges for women’s health researchers include 1) extending and integrating knowledge of biobehavioral and sociocultural dimensions of women’s health, 2) expanding understanding of the etiology of disease risk and the means to improve health outcomes among vulnerable subpopulations of women, and 3) advancing interdisciplinary and collaborative efforts to develop and test interventions to promote, maintain, and restore women’s health. The goals of this special issue are to 1) provide recent findings related to the biobehavioral determinants of women’s health, 2) demonstrate the importance of examining sex in clinical problems and outcomes, and 3) promote the examination of sex as an important variable to be considered in biobehavioral research. Manuscripts focused either on women’s health or on disparities in health based on sex will be considered.

Submissions of basic science, clinical and applied research and theoretical-research-practice linkages from multiple disciplines are encouraged as long as they address translational relevance to nursing practice.

Biological Research for Nursing is the only journal specifically intended to deliver basic, clinical, and applied research about biological changes in healthy and unhealthy populations to nurses. The journal publishes peer-reviewed articles that address issues such as:

> Theoretical foundations that increase understanding of biological and physiological changes in health and illness

> Enhancements in health care interventions developed through biological and physiological research findings

> New methods, instruments, and techniques for biological and physiological research

Author Guidelines: Complete manuscripts (including illustrations, figures, etc.) should be submitted electronically at . Authors will be required to set up an online account on the SageTrack system powered by ScholarOne. Submission of a manuscript implies commitment to publish in the journal. Concurrence of all listed authors is assumed. Authors submitting manuscripts to the journal should not simultaneously submit them to another journal; nor should authors submit manuscripts that have been published elsewhere in substantially similar form or with substantially similar content.

For more detailed author guidelines, please go to

Editorial Contact Information

Margaret M. Heitkemper, PhD, RN, FAAN, Professor, Biobehavioral Nursing & Health Systems, School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, Tel: 206 543 1091,

Nancy F. Woods, PhD, RN, FAAN, Professor & Dean, School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle Tel: 206 543-8732

Carol A. Landis, DNSc, RN, FAAN, Professor, Biobehavioral Nursing & Health Systems, School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, Tel: 206 616-1908 

Contact the managing editor with questions about the manuscript-submission process:

Marnie Wiss, Managing Editor, Tel: 352-335-4195, Fax: 352-378-2731, Email:

Chronicle: How to Write an Outreach Grant Proposal

In an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Karen M. Markin (director of research development at the University of Rhode Island’s research office) offers guidance on writing a successful outreach grant application:

  1. Identify the problem or need;
  2. define general goals and specific objectives;
  3. provide a road map for how the objectives will be achieved;
  4. explain how will you organize and manage the activity;
  5. describe the process whereby you will evaluate outcomes.

Excerpts here:

Writing a grant for community or “outreach” activities is different from writing a research grant. In a scientific grant proposal, it is understood that researchers are exploring new realms and cannot know exactly what they will encounter. That’s the definition of basic science, and delving into the unknown is what makes it exciting.

In contrast, an outreach grant proposal represents a road map for a project in which the applicants know where they are going and how to get there, and anticipates bumps in the road.

Foundations and agencies that support outreach programs want to see their money make a difference. . .

Establishing the need for the work you propose is an essential first step. While a scientific-research project usually doesn’t have to identify practical applications for the work, an outreach proposal must show the existence of a problem that needs to be remedied. A strong “statement of need,” as it is sometimes called in the application, lists specific problems and supports those claims with documentation. It is akin to the significance section of a research proposal. The U.S. Department of Education’s Web site provides several examples of successful proposals that include detailed need statements. . . .

The terms “goals” and “objectives” may seem interchangeable, but there is an important distinction between them in a grant proposal, particularly in a results-oriented outreach grant.

A goal is the situation you want to achieve in the long run. World peace is an example of a lofty goal. But no one will give you money to pursue world peace. Instead, you must identify some concrete results you can achieve during the grant period that will take the world a few steps closer to that ideal. . . .

The next component common to outreach grants is a work plan. That is a detailed description of the activities that will lead you to your goals and objectives. It is similar to the methods section of a scientific-research proposal but more detailed with regard to what you will do and when. In a scientific proposal, you need not explain each standard laboratory technique in detail. But an outreach grant often involves describing unique and innovative activities. . . .

Who will do the recruiting and training? Who will reserve the space? Those questions need to be answered in a section usually called the management plan. Here again, you will need to provide more detail about the project leadership than you would in a scientific proposal. . . .

Outreach grants are about results. Careers of individual program officers as well as future support for a given program can depend on how well current grantees perform. Most likely you will be asked to include an evaluation plan in your proposal so you can document whether you have been successful.

Evaluation conducted at the end of a project is called “summative evaluation” in education-related grants. Demonstrate your success by showing your achievement of the measurable objectives listed at the beginning of the proposal.

The full article is available on line to subscribers.