Scientific Online Resource System

Conference Proceedings

Научната дейност през погледа на студенти по медицина

Kатя Пеева, Светлана Димитрова, Живка Цокева, Ирена Ганева, Виктория Дякова, Нийв Oдонъхю, Жаклин Заркос, Даниел Aдай

Abstract

Introduction: Scientific research and the publication of results have always been messengers for future advances in medicine. They are an integral part of the professional life of specialists working in a university. Creating your own scientific publication of any kind is often underestimated and insufficiently known activity, unfortunately not necessarily preferred. The path to the final publication can be a monotonous and extensive process. Training students in the principles of creation a scientific work is an important factor for better science. This is the reason to explore the opinions and attitudes of medical students to scientific work. The goal is to systematise and summarize methods of good scientific work.

Materials and Methods: We have included 172 medical students, second and fourth year, Bulgarian and English students. A specially designed and approbated questionnaire containing multiple choice questions was used. Data were entered and processed with statistical package IBM SPSS Statistics 19.

Results: Almost all students had some experience in scientific work, understood its importance and the need for citing sources used. The year of training is an important factor in assessing the importance of research.

Discussion: Students' experience is a factor that changes their opinion towards a greater understanding of the meaning of scientific work and the need for further training. This will develop their knowledge and skills for developing a scientific work.


Keywords

medicine; students, academic; scientific activity research

Full Text


References

Badea O. Do medical students really understand plagiarism? – Case study. Romanian Journal of Morphology & Embryology, 2017, 58(1):293–296.

Buis JJ, Post G, Visser VR. Academic skills: for interdisciplinary studies. Amsterdam University Press, 2017.

DeHaan RL. Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 2009, 8.3: 172-181.

Fosbøl EL, Fosbøl PL, Rerup S, Østergaard L, Ahmed MH, Butt J, Lewinter C. Low immediate scientific yield of the PhD among medical doctors. BMC Medical Education, 2016, 16(1), 189.

Foster JS, Lemus JD. Developing the Critical Thinking Skills of Astrobiology Students through Creative and Scientific Inquiry. Astrobiology, 2015, 15.1: 89-99.

Garrison, D. Randy; Anderson, Terry; Archer, Walter. Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The internet and higher education, 1999, 2.2: 87-105.

Guilford WH. Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in physiology education, 2001, 25.3: 167-175.

Hesselbach RA, Petering DH, Berg CA, Tomasiewicz H, Weber D. A guide to writing a scientific paper: a focus on high school through graduate level student research. Zebrafish, 2012, 9.4: 246-249.

Pfeiffer M, Fischer MR, Bauer D. Publication activities of German junior researchers in academic medicine: which factors impact impact factors?. BMC medical education, 2016, 16.1: 190.


Refbacks

Font Size