Introduction to Really Good Stuff 2024

It is always my great pleasure to work with and learn each year from the team of Medical Education Editorial Interns. I rely on them to review submissions and assist me in the selection process. I encourage you to draw on the experience-won perspectives they developed to better understand what makes for ‘Really Good Stuff’.

Molly Fyfe University of California at San Francisco

As someone who is passionate about educational innovation, evaluation and continuous quality improvement, it is truly exciting to see the work captured in the Really Good Stuff (RGS) submissions. The opportunity to review a larger batch of papers in quick succession allows for a ‘30,000-foot’ perspective on the RGS section, and from this perspective, there are a few aspects that stood out to me.

First, RGS showcases ‘development-oriented’ projects in which educators exercise professional autonomy, creativity and reflection to address problems in their educational setting. The focus on ‘lessons learned’ (rather than ‘results’) emphasises critical reflection for continuous quality improvement. Well-written RGS papers, therefore, make the most of this format by including reflections, negative results and operational data to offer compelling insights.

Second, the most common problem with submissions I came across was insufficient detail. Working within the 500-word limit requires concise writing that challenges authors to enable readers to fully grasp what was tried. Overall, strong submissions described the educational setting, pedagogical approach, educational content, educators involved and learners. The innovation itself, however, is the glue that holds these papers together, so details about ‘what was tried’ are paramount.

Finally, many RGS innovations aimed at aligning medical education with the broader context of health systems, population health needs or reversing oppressive practices. Given the international readership of Medical Education, it is helpful to develop the ‘problem addressed’ such that the reader can easily make connections between their context and where the innovation was developed. Papers that did this well emphasised core issues that are shared across contexts.

Georgina Stephens Monash University

What is it that makes stuff ‘really good’ in Medical Education? Prior to my involvement in the current batch of RGS submissions, my engagement with the journal focused on writing and reviewing research articles. Through my editorial internship, however, I have become really interested to learn about the variety of article types published by journals and the different ways they aim to advance the field of health professions education. Through my experience reviewing submissions for RGS, I have come to appreciate the immense value of this succinct, engaging and highly practical article type and I am ashamed to admit I have not (yet) tried to write for RGS myself.

Much academic writing gives the impression that successful innovations get things perfectly right on the first go. Although details about what worked (and why) are important, what I came to value most about RGS are the lessons learned, including the ability to be candid about what did not work and how that can inform future directions. Offering such begets a degree of vulnerability from authors, but as an educator, and now avid reader of RGS, it is the submissions that did not shy away from including a critical reflection on the work presented that I found most interesting and practically relevant.

For aspiring authors of RGS, I had encourage you to consider RGS as the written equivalent of a discussion with a trusted colleague you have not seen for a while: You might proudly describe the projects you have been working on since you last met, but you should also be able to openly discuss the stumbling blocks you encountered along the way along with what you are now keen to try out based on those experiences. In summary, it is the combination of innovation and reflection that made the submissions I reviewed so ‘really good’.

Farhan Vakani Dow University of Health Sciences

To me, RGS papers effectively lie between the ‘so what’ and ‘now what’ stages of educational development. As such, I want to take this opportunity to reflect on how they, ideally, create a connection between those engaged in development and reviewers/readers. The format provides an excellent starting point for innovators to publish their work in a highly indexed medical education journal, but the crux of RGS is to concisely disclose what has been learned to help others avoid making the same mistake again. It is, therefore, essential to be extraordinarily brave by offering insights in a brief write-up rather than simply trying to convince the community that you have done something particularly well.

As a reviewer, therefore, it is important to assess why the author felt a need to initiate the idea, how it was attempted and whether or not it contains a message that should be shared with the community of practice. Readers, after all, will prioritise and use the work only if it provides new ideas that have the potential to inspire their own work. The brevity that makes these papers challenging to write well is particularly helpful for those who do not enjoy, or have time for, extensive reading. Keeping sight of that fact offers a powerful reminder that the text we offer as authors is likely to be accepted only if it conveys interesting ideas and concepts that others may not have thought of before. So, do not just think ‘outside the box’ but think ‘outside your own head’ to prioritise the provision of new ideas that will make readers take notice.

M. Brownell Anderson: Conceptualization; investigation; funding acquisition; writing—original draft. Molly Fyfe: Writing—original draft. Georgina Stephens: Writing—original draft. Farhan Vakani: Writing—original draft.