We developed the framework to address a substantial gap in the literature and to equip emerging academics with greater willingness and skill to apply this innovative technique for responding appropriately to the silliest of reviewers’ comments. We present an evidence-based framework to guide beginners in their use of the SATSQ approach. Progress in this area may not be possible without such evidence. Adopters of the approach themselves, however, will undoubtedly require the kind of support and guidance that only the strongest of evidence can provide. Altruism and the potential for global recognition may draw some leaders to champion the important cause represented by the SATSQ approach.
#Snappy answers to stupid questions professional#
Intuition suggests that such consequences could include damaged professional reputations, lost opportunities for funding, and fewer publications. 2 One of the greatest barriers to its ubiquitous use may be a perception by emerging academics that adverse consequences may result should they apply the approach inappropriately. 3, 4ĭitching existing rigid formalities and following the SATSQ approach to silly comments may prove key to overcoming this grand challenge. This reality has undoubtedly led to the unprecedented levels of stress, psychosomatia and absent-mindedness that plague contemporary medicine.
In Canada, for example, physicians are expected to follow the CanMEDS Competencies, which requires them to demonstrate, inter alia, “high personal standards of behavior.” 2 Indeed, the invention of the peer-review process has pushed academics to delicately nurture, refine and massage their responses to reviewers in the knowledge that their livelihoods depend on doing so. Research suggests that professionals may not respond appropriately to silly comments because they feel bound by stringent rules of collegiality 1 they are expected simply to bite their tongues and respond with utmost diplomacy.
0 kommentar(er)
