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

Abstract

Problem: Syrian medical research synthesis lags behind that of neighboring countries. The Syrian war has exacerbated the situation, creating obstacles such as destroyed infrastructure, inflated clinical workload, and deteriorated medical training. Poor scientific writing skills have ranked first among perceived obstacles that could be modified to improve Syrian research conduct at every academic level. However, limited access to personal and physical resources in conflict areas consistently hampers the implementation of standard professional-led interventions. Intervention: We designed a peer-run online academic writing and publishing workshop as a feasible, affordable, and sustainable training method to use in low-resource settings. This workshop covered the structure of scientific articles, academic writing basics, plagiarism, and the publication process. It was also supplemented by six practical assignments to exercise the learned skills. Context: The workshop targeted healthcare professionals and medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy trainees (undergraduate and postgraduate) at all Syrian universities. We employed a systematic design to evaluate the workshop's short- and long-term impact when using different instructional delivery methods and assignment formats. Participants were assigned in a stratified manner to four groups; two groups attended the workshop synchronously, and the other two groups attended asynchronously. One arm in each group underwent a supervised peer-review evaluation for the practical writing exercises (active), while the other arm in each group self-reviewed their work on the same exercises using exemplary solutions (passive). We assessed knowledge (30 questions), confidence in the learned skills (11 questions), and the need for further guidance in academic writing (1 question) before the workshop and one month and one year after it. Impact: One-hundred-twenty-one participants completed the workshop, showing improved knowledge, confidence, and need for guidance. At one-year follow-up, participants showed stability in these gains. Outcomes for the synchronous and asynchronous groups were similar. Completing practical assignments was associated with greater knowledge and confidence only in the active arms. Participants in the active arms engaging in the peer-review process showed greater knowledge increase and reported less need for guidance compared to those who did not engage in the peer-review. Lessons learned: Peer-run interventions can provide an effective, affordable alternative to improving scientific writing skills in settings with limited resources and expertise. Online academic writing training can show improvements regardless of method of attendance (i.e., synchronous versus asynchronous). Participation in supplementary practical exercises, especially when associated with peer-review, may improve knowledge and confidence.