To improve research publication output, a general practice
department in Australia declared a department wide ‘writing week’.
Components included: pre-registration, an initial presentation
followed by scheduled one-on-one sessions with an external
facilitator, a progress ‘running sheet’, voucher incentives, and a
concluding session for shared feedback and ‘prize giving’.
Ninety percent (18/90) of potential staff participated, from novice
to senior. In the subsequent 3 months eight papers were submitted
and a further nine were nearing completion. Expressed benefits
were having dedicated and structured time, collegial support and an
While effectiveness of writing week could not be precisely measured
with respect to publication outputs, researchers, regardless of
seniority, benefited from the provision of structural knowledge,
quarantined time and/or support to write up research.
For better or worse, the research output of academics is measured by the number of publications, citation rates and the impact factor of peer reviewed journals in which they publish.1 While the impact factor is a crude measure which may not adequately represent scientific quality and overall impact of a paper within a given field,2 quantity and quality of publications are critical to an individual's academic review and may influence future employment. This is as true for primary health care academics as it is for biomedical and general scientists.3
Download the PDF for the full article.