BMERG Blog

Publishing in Medical Education: Conference Series – Writing effective conference abstracts

Building on our previous BMERG Publishing in Medical Education blogs, in this post Dr Sally Dowling introduces our Writing for Publication Conference Series. Here she talks about a different sort of writing and dissemination of your work – responding to calls for conference presentations and posters.

Image: The Climate Reality Project/Unsplash

Why should you present your work at academic conferences?

Academics choose to present their work at conferences and meetings for a range of reasons. It’s an important part of the dissemination of finished research projects, but it can also be an opportunity to gain feedback on ‘work in progress’, as well as to hear from and meet others in your field and those whose work may be related to yours.

If you are an early career researcher it can be a good way to build connections and network. If you are able to obtain funding to attend a conference it can be a good way to have some ‘time-out’ from everyday pressures to think about, and discuss, your work. You may also get the opportunity to visit some interesting places! Post-covid, some conferences now offer hybrid attendance and others have remained online.

What’s the difference between a paper presentation and a poster?

A paper presentation, sometimes called an oral presentation (or if you are the main speaker, a ‘keynote’ presentation) is where someone delivers a talk to an audience. In some disciplines this might mean literally reading a paper (similar to a journal article); in others it is more usual to deliver a talk accompanied by a slide presentation.

This may be to a large lecture hall full of people or to a smaller audience in parallel sessions – depending on the type and structure of the conference. Length of presentations varies and may or may not include time for questions. Sometimes all presenters in a session will give their presentations and questions will follow, addressed to the speakers as a panel.

Conference posters are usually displayed for the duration of the conference – they are large (often A1 or A0) posters presenting reports of a research project or other work, usually including words and images. Recently the use of electronic posters is also becoming more common, either made available to view online or physically on large screens at the conference venue.

The aim is to give conference attendees the chance to find out about a range of relevant work and, usually, to ask questions of the researcher or representative of the research team. Some conferences expect poster presenters to stand with their posters at specific times (coffee breaks or lunchtimes, or an early evening session, for example) in order to ‘talk to’ their poster if required.

What is a ‘call for papers’?

Many conferences publish a ‘call for papers/posters’ well in advance of the conference. These will usually be on the websites of relevant organisations (such as AMEE or ASME). You can keep an eye out and find out what time of year these usually appear by visiting our BMERG Abstract Calls! page.

When you look at the call there will be important information to note:

  • Submission format: Some conferences will want you to submit your abstract as an attachment – others will use an online platform, which may require you to register.
  • Deadline: There will usually be a strictly-enforced deadline.
  • Word count: This is usually very specific and may be constrained by allowances of online text boxes.
  • Structure: It is important to note whether the abstract should be structured or unstructured. If they require that the abstract is structured it will often follow a Background, Aim, Methods, Results, Conclusions format (see figure 1 below) – if there are different headings to be used make sure you are aware of this.
  • References: Instructions may also specify whether or not you can use references and, if so, may give a limit (usually a small number).
  • Themes and Streams: Details should be on the conference website of themed conference streams or specific types of sessions you can submit to; make sure you are clear about these and indicate which you prefer if asked.
  • Presentation format: You may be asked if you are submitting for an oral or a poster presentation, and if there is more than one author you will usually be asked to indicate who will be the presenter.
Example of conventional headings for a structured abstract
HeadingContent
BackgroundSpecify the nature and size of the problem; outline its importance to practice, and the gap that needs to be addressed. This section should emphasise the relevance and significance of the issue to the conference delegates and should embrace a relevant theme
AimSpecify this clearly and simply, including study design/approach
MethodsSample
Data collection Data analysis Ethical issues
Results/ FindingsReport this clearly and succinctly to provide the reader with a fair impression of the data
ConclusionIt is important to be specific and produce a balanced conclusion based on the results and how it captures the selected conference theme
Figure 1: Example of conventional headings for a structured abstract. From Albarran and Dowling (2017, p.325).

What should I put in my abstract?

Writing a good abstract will maximise your chances of acceptance. It’s also a way for people to read about your project in advance, or after the conference. Some conferences publish abstracts after the event; sometimes as a supplement to a journal connected to the conference.

What you say in your abstract will act as a ‘hook’ to bring people to your presentation or poster, or to want to contact you to find out more about your work. Use an engaging and academically persuasive tone, take time to refine what you have written and proof-read carefully before submission. Asking a critical friend to read through your abstract can be helpful.

Guidance on how to format your abstract
Guideline
Name of lead presenter and contact detailsYou will be required to provide details of your place of work and qualifications
Name of authors, titles and contact detailsObtain full addresses, titles, professional qualifications and contact details including email address
TitleThis should be kept to 12 words or less. If reporting the results of a study, audit or service improvement, it is good practice to include methodology in the title. A good title should provoke interest, curiosity and relate to the chosen theme
HeadingsEmploy the headings as suggested and in the order recommended
Word limitThis will range between 200–300 words maximum—abbreviations are often discouraged, check this out
Key termsYou may be invited to provide 4–6 search terms that embrace the content of your abstract
Font size and typeThis will normally be prescribed—ensure you follow the recommendations.
Referencing style and numberConfirm the referencing style permitted prior to drafting the abstract, and how many are allowed; some will limit the number to a maximum of three
Conflicts of interestIf you have any conflicts of interest, declare these
FundingSome scientific committees expect you to state whether your project was externally funded; if it has, confirm this
Permission to publish your abstractShould you be accepted to present, the abstract may be published as part of conference proceedings. Note that you may not have the opportunity to revise
AbbreviationsGenerally these are discouraged, so it is sensible to check the guidelines; it is likely that only universally accepted abbreviations may be permitted
Figure 2. Guidance on how to format your abstract. Table adapted from Albarran and Dowling (2017, p.326).

What happens to my abstract after submission?

Most conferences will have a conference committee who will review abstracts received before the deadline (so this is a form of peer review). Depending on the conference preparation timeline, it can take some time to hear, so be patient! Some conferences will give a date on their webpages, telling you when you will hear from them; others don’t do this. Wait to hear and then start preparing for your conference!

The next blog in this series coming soon: Tips on how to produce your conference poster

Further reading:

Albarran, J. & Dowling, S., 2017, Writing an effective conference abstract British Journal of Cardiac Nursing. 12, 7, pp. 324-328

Higgins, M., Eogan, M., O’Donoghue K., Russell, N. (2013) How to write an abstract that will be accepted. BMJ, 346: 2974 doi:10.1136/bmj.f2974 

Pieper, P. (2014) Writing Your Journal or Conference Abstract. Journal of Pediatric Surgical Nursing. 3(2), pp. 47-50


More about this blog’s author

Sally is a Lecturer at Bristol Medical School, working both for the Health Professions Education programme and as Co-Director of the MSc Reproduction and Development. She also runs a series of writing for publication workshops (see programme here) for the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Bristol.


Check out our previous Publishing in Medical Education Posts


BMERG News: Award Win for one of our Bristol Medical Education Researchers!

We are hugely pleased to share another amazing success for the fantastic Dr Grace Pearson, who is this year’s winner of the Association for the Study of Medical Education Trainees TASME Mentorship Prize.

The TASME Mentorship Prize is an individual award that provides resources for early career health professions educators to develop a mentorship relationship that will support their development as an educator.

Grace is this year’s winner of this prestigious award with her submission ‘Improving the care of older people in Zimbabwe through undergraduate and postgraduate teaching innovation.’ Grace shares that,

“this prize will help towards work with clinicians at the University of Zimbabwe Medical School, strengthening collaborative efforts to innovate teaching in geriatric medicine.”

Congratulations Grace, we look forward to hearing all about this exciting work in the future.

Read more about this award at www.asme.org.uk/news/tasme-mentorship-prize-2024-winner/

Trainees in the Association for the Study of Medical Education (TASME) is a career group of ASME. TASME’s mission is to foster interest and support development in medical education amongst early career doctors (up to 5 years post foundation training) – and early career allied healthcare professionals (up to 7 years post graduation). 


Read more about Grace’s work on the BMERG profiles page and follow her on X @GraceInvaders


BMERG Work: New Educator Profile

This month’s highlighted Educator Profile is Dr Ed Luff

Ed is an Emergency Medical Doctor and Bristol Medical School graduate. His role is currently split between working as a Clinical Lecturer at Bristol Medical School and Speciality Teaching Fellow and Tutor at South Bristol Academy, based in the Bristol Royal Infirmary.

He is also finishing his MSc dissertation exploring students’ experiences and perceptions of using simulation as a method to teach human factors and non-technical skills, as part of his studies on the Health Professionals Education (TLHP) course.


Read more about Ed and some of our other Bristol Medical School Educators by visiting our: BMERG Educator and Researcher Profile Page


Building Community: Spotlight on the Incubator for Clinical Education Research

This weeks BMERG blog is a spotlight on the Incubator for Clinical Educator Research (ClinEdR). Hosted by the University of Newcastle, the Incubator is an NIHR initiative launched in 2020 to develop ClinEdR as an academic field.

Image (c) UX Indonesia on Unsplash

What is the Incubator?

The mission and aim of the ClinEdR Incubator is to support and promote careers in clinical education research through building a multi-professional community of practice. It extends across all health professions and aims to bring people together to develop their ideas, build collaborations and provide a network of developing experience in the field.

What is Clinical Education Research?

This is one of the most fundamental questions and tends to have a myriad of different definitions and terms including clinical, medical, and healthcare professionals education research to name just a few. Often the word ‘clinical’ can drive the idea that this sort of research must have a direct impact in clinical practice and thus can seem to exclude certain areas of research in education.

The team at the Incubator have tried to broaden this idea, embracing all sorts of different research that can and does have an impact on societal health needs by “enhancing the education, training and development of health and social care practitioners, and the organisations within which they work and learn“. They highlight a number of different areas in which individuals and teams may be undertaking clinical education research such as:

  • Pedagogical research
  • Planning and design of educational programmes
  • Regulation processes
  • Organisation context of learning, such as learning environments and workforce inclusivity
  • Learner experience and careers

They also consider that this whilst this type of research may have a direct clinical impact for patients it may achieve impact in other ways such as benefiting clinicians in their training, influencing health and education systems and through challenging and developing standards.

How can the Incubator help those who want to engage in Clinical Education Research?

The incubator is a fantastic place to start regardless of where you are in your ClinEdR journey. It offers a variety of resource and links via it’s website such as:

So why not take a look at their resources, find out who works in ClinEdR in your area and sign up to be part of the growing Incubator network!


You can learn more about the Incubator at clinicaleducationresearch.org/ on Twitter/X at @ClinEdResearch or email the team at clinical.education.incubator@newcastle.ac.uk


Hot Topics: The ELMER project

This week’s blog is from Dr David Hettle, hot off the recent announcement of winning the ASME/GMC Excellent Medical Education Award (postgraduate category). David tells us a bit more about the planned research project with colleagues across the country, exploring the experiences of doctors undertaking an entry-level medical education roles (ELMERs).

Lisa Jayne Collage
Image from ASME Awards page

Lisa-Jayne Edwards (University of Warwick), Claire Stocker (Aston University), Julie Browne (Cardiff University), Cara Bezzina (University of Glasgow), David Hettle (University of Bristol)

Introduction

More and more doctors take time out of clinical training, with many choosing to undertake teaching posts during years out, especially ‘F3 years’: time out of training after your initial standardised two years post-graduation1, the ‘Foundation Programme’. These teaching posts have a variety of names including Clinical Teaching Fellows (as they are locally in Bristol), Teaching Fellows, and Education Fellows.

With the increasing need for educators, these posts host a crucial place for doctors developing interest, skills and expertise in medical education as they progress in clinical and educational training. Therefore, there is need to understand the landscape of educational practice which these positions deliver and support the development of these current educators and future educational leaders.

Previous work reviewed the current landscape of entry-level education posts across the UK, finding over 400 positions per year in the UK in 20232, up from 77 in 20083. Though the numbers of these posts have increased, due to the variety of different titles used and the often transience of the doctors in these positions, research into posts is challenging. Importantly this means research into the quality of these posts remains under-studied.

Why does this matter?

This research holds great opportunity to really find out how early-career educators can be supported. Currently, there seems to be wide variation in the quality of posts, with some offering financial support for educational accreditation, others designated time to teach and develop skills in specific aspects of education.

On the flip side, they are others without any additional time, support or links to educational teams offered, yet still carrying responsibility for others’ learning. This work hopes to facilitate more information and some degree of quality control for early-career educational roles as occurs with other medical specialties, for example through their colleges and specialty societies.

The ELMER study

Building on our work undertaken alongside the Academy of Medical Educators (AoME), this new project through the Association for the Study of Medical Education (ASME) seeks to explore the perspectives of current early-career education post-holders. We will investigate how different role qualities and opportunities impact their experience within medical education and, as a result, doctors’ inclination to pursue future teaching and training responsibilities once they move on from these posts (often back into clinical training).

To encompass all similar roles, our research team has chosen to use the term ‘Entry-Level Medical Education Role’ or ELMER as an individual’s first formal role in medical education.

We will use these doctors’ experience in their ELMERs to identify factors which promote formal teaching and increased educational activity and development. We have positioned the study in a pragmatic paradigm, focusing on the interaction between individuals (i.e. ELMER post-holders) and their environment, emphasising experiential research, and actionable knowledge. The study will use a mixed methods approach using a survey, followed by interviews, inviting any current ELMER post-holders to take part. Qualitative data will be analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, developing and telling the story of current ELMER post-holders.

Alongside the prior review of ELMER posts across the UK, the primary objective of this integral work is to offer insights that can inform policy decisions on how ELMER roles can support doctors in training to become future trainers, assessors, and leaders in medical education.

Why is this work so important to me?

As someone who has been a CTF in the past, but having finished that formal role wondered ‘where next?’, this work adds to the evidence for the development of a more formalised medical education career pathway, supporting educators of the future, alongside their clinical training. The current lack of such a pathway risks losing excellent educators after their ELMER posts, a risk which the field of medical education should not leave to chance.

Watch out for details of how to be involved soon if you are an early-career educator, ‘ELMER’ – we’d love to hear your experience! Drop me an email at david.hettle@bristol.ac.uk if you want to hear any more before then.

References

  1. Church HR, Agius SJ. ‘The F3 phenomenon: Early-career training breaks in medical training. A scoping review’, Med Educ 2021; 55(9): 1033-46.
  2. Hettle D, Edwards LJ, McCormack R, et al. (2023, Dec 4-5). A UK-wide review of Entry-Level Medical Education Roles (ELMERs) [Poster presentation]. Developing Excellence in Medical Education, Manchester, UK.  https://www.demec.org.uk/category/demec-2023/
  3. Wilson S, Denison AR, McKenzie H. A survey of clinical teaching fellowships in UK medical schools. Med Educ 2008; 42(2): 170-5.

BMERG News: Award win for one of our Bristol Educators!

We are thrilled to share that one of our BMERG Medical Educators, Dr David Hettle has been recently awarded one of the ASME/GMC Excellent Medical Education Award 2023!

Photo credit: Brett Garwood on Unsplash

The “Excellent Medical Education” Programme was established by ASME to supporting capacity building of high-quality medical education research. David is part of the team that has won this award in the postgraduate category for their submission: Exploring the experiences and perspectives of junior doctors in Entry-Level Medical Education Roles (ELMERs) that promote pursuit of a medical education career in the United Kingdom.

WINNER OF THE POSTGRADUATE CATEGORY

Lisa Jayne Collage

L-R: Lisa-Jayne Edwards (University of Warwick), Claire Stocker (Aston University), Julie Browne (Cardiff University), Cara Bezzina (University of Glasgow), David Hettle (University of Bristol)

We look forward to hearing more about this work from David and his colleagues in the future.

Read more about this Year’s Excellent Medical Education Award Winners: ASME announces winners of the ASME/GMC Excellent Medical Education Award 2023

BMERG work: Latest BMERG profiles

This week’s blog is a reminder to check out the BMERG profiles pages. This is where we highlight some of our University of Bristol Medical Educators. They share their projects and their journeys to inspire others considering a career in Medical Education.

Our latest profile is Dr David Hettle, a passionate educator working as an Honorary Senior Clinical Teaching Fellow, alongside clinical training in Infectious Diseases and Microbiology. They are involved in work supporting and promoting educator development both locally and nationally through work with the Developing Medical Educators group (DMEG) of the Academy of Medical Educators.

Read more about David and some of our other educators: BMERG Educator and Researcher Profiles

Building Community: BMERG Journal Club, Cultural Competency

Adding to our BMERG Journal Club series, this month Dr Claire Hudson reflects on the discussion from our January journal club focussing on Cultural Competency.

Liu, J., K. Miles, and S. Li, Cultural competence education for undergraduate medical students: An ethnographic study. Frontiers in Education, 2022. 7. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2022.980633/full

This paper was chosen by my colleague, Assoc. Prof Liang-Fong Wong, who has a combined interest in cultural competency and medical education, being Year 4 co-lead for our undergraduate MBChB programme and Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor for Internationalisation.  Both Liang and I are keen to develop our qualitative research skills, and at first glance, this paper seemed like an excellent example of a qualitative study.

What is ‘Cultural Competency’?

Liu et al suggest culturally competent healthcare professionals should “communicate effectively and care for patients from diverse social and cultural backgrounds, and to recognize and appropriately address racial, cultural, gender and other sociocultural relevant biases in healthcare delivery”; others have defined attributes of culture competency including “cultural awareness, cultural knowledge, cultural skill, cultural sensitivity, cultural interaction, and cultural understanding”. These concepts were explained effectively at the start of the paper; I felt the authors provided me with context for my subsequent reading.

What was the research?

The authors perceived that teaching of cultural competency is inconsistent across medical schools, and there is a paucity of evidence for how effective the teaching is, and how students actually develop their cultural competency throughout their training. They aimed to describe students’ experiences of learning and developing cultural competency, using an ethnographic approach. They carried out student observations, interviews and focus groups; recruiting participants from a central London medical school.

What were the findings?

There is a wealth of qualitative data and discussion presented in the paper, so perhaps the authors could summarise their overall findings in a clearer way. They suggest that students develop cultural competency in stages; in the pre-clinical years they have formal teaching opportunities, and as their clinical exposure increases, the culture content becomes embedded and derived from other learning experiences, including intercalation and placements.  They highlight the importance of learning from patients’ lived experiences, from peers and from other (non-medical) student communities.

What did we think?

  • Clear descriptions: I come from a quantitative, scientific background, therefore I find reading qualitative papers quite challenging; the terminology used is noticeably different and somewhat out of my ‘comfort zone’! Having said that, the authors very clearly explained the basis of ethnography and reflexivity, which really helped us understand the rationale for them adopting these approaches. Data collection and analysis were explained in detail which reassured us that these were robust and valid. However, thorough descriptions mean a long paper; and it could be more concise in places.
  • Awareness of limitations: A strength of this research was the authors’ transparency about some of its limitations. For example, they acknowledged a potential bias in participant recruitment due to the main author’s own cultural background, but described ways to mitigate this. We found it really interesting that the authors observed different dynamics in the interviews and focus groups depending on the facilitator. In those conducted by a PhD student, a rapport was built such that the students were relaxed and open with their communication, allowing them to be critical about the cultural competency teaching they had received. Conversely, in those conducted by a medical school academic, students were more reserved and tended to be positive about the teaching, highlighting an obvious teacher-student power dynamic. Importantly, this was acknowledged, and adjustments were made. Our biggest take-home message: Carefully consider who facilitates interviews and focus groups so there are no conflicts of interest, and trust is fostered between participants and researchers. Otherwise, students may just tell you what you want to hear!
  • Evaluation to recommendations: We also remarked that the authors have been clever in the way they present this study for publication. Essentially, they have carried out an internal evaluation of cultural competency teaching in their own medical school, but they have externalised this by making a series of recommendations. They benefit from a very diverse student population, and showcase some really good practice in cultural competency teaching which could be adopted by medical schools.

Overall reflections

Reading this paper made us reflect on non-clinical teaching on other programmes; it is important to remember that diverse student populations increase cultural awareness in all settings. Widening participation schemes and overseas students are important for this. During group work, I try to make the groups as diverse as possible, and I believe this is a positive experience.

The study highlighted different levels of engagement from students with cultural competency teaching, some thought it was ‘pointless’ as they were already culturally competent, or they thought the skills were ‘soft’ and would rather be learning facts, other found it really valuable. This is familiar when teaching other skills in other disciplines; the constant battle getting ‘buy-in’ from students, highlighting the need to always explain ‘Why’ certain teaching is important.

This study is a good showcase for qualitative research, and I made a mental note to refer back to this paper when developing my own qualitative research in the future; which must be a good sign!


Read our previous Journal club review on Self-regulated learning here: https://bmerg.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/2023/11/24/journal_club_publication_review1/


Event News: TICC GW4: The Inaugural CTF Conference

Dr Ed Luff
Dr Sam Chumbley

In this blog Dr Sam Chumbley and Dr Ed Luff invite you to The Inaugural CTF Conference: TICC GW4, hosted by the University of Bristol in collaboration with BMERG.

TICC GW4 provides an opportunity to see and present the valued work of Clinical Teaching Fellows (CTFs) from across the GW4 Alliance Medical Schools of Bristol, Cardiff, and Exeter. Building on the successes of last year’s Inaugural CTF Conference at the University of Bristol, which brought together CTFs from Bristol Medical School’s regional academies, we have expanded this year’s meeting, to invite presenters from the GW4 Alliance Medical Schools, Bristol, Cardiff, and Exeter.

One of the highlights of this year’s expanded interinstitutional conference will be a keynote from Dr Jo Hartland, Senior Lecturer and Deputy Education Director at Bristol Medical School. They will be presenting an account of their work in the field of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.

There will also be presentation options for CTFs from the GW4 Alliance, in a variety of formats, including Research, Innovation and Opinion Pieces. Authors can choose to submit abstracts for consideration as a Showcase presentation (20 minutes), Oral presentation (10 minutes), Poster presentation (3 minutes) or for display as an e-Poster, which requires no presentation on the day. Opinion Pieces can also be considered for an Open Forum (30-minute) platform of discussion. There will also be a variety of workshops run on the day, to help develop delegates’ research and clinical academic skills.

All those involved in the teaching or support of medical students, be that clinical, academic, or administrative, are welcome to attend the conference. However, presentations will only be open to Clinical Teaching Fellows from the GW4 Alliance Medical Schools.

Registration is free and lunch will be provided. TICC GW4 will be held in Bristol on the 5th of April 2024. Further details will be sent following registration.

To register for the conference or to submit your abstract for consideration for presentation at the conference, please follow this link: TICC GW4 Registration

Registration will close nearer to the conference date.

The deadline for submission of abstracts is 12:00 on Friday 8th March 2024.

For further information visit https://bmerg.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/ticc-gw4/ or for queries please contact med-leadctf@bristol.ac.uk


Publishing in Medical Education: Harnessing Open Access to Communicate your Research Effectively

This latest blog in our publishing series is a must read for all researchers, not just those in medical education.

In this blog research support librarian Kate Holmes will introduce you to Open Access publishing, why it matters, a few handy tools, and how it might influence where you decide to place your article.

Open sign by Viktor Forgacs (Unsplash)

You’ve decided you want to write an article. You’ve thought about your structure, maybe using some of the support and advice from this blog. Maybe you’ve even begun to think about where you’d like to place it. So, how might publishing Open Access influence the process?

What is Open Access?

Open Access (OA) is free, unrestricted online access to research outputs.

This means that anyone with an internet connection can read your work because it is available without someone having to go through a paywall or log into a system.

There are two common routes to Open Access:

Gold: where the library pays the publisher to make the article available on the publisher’s website free of charge to readers, with their formatting and copyediting.

Green: where you upload the Author Accepted Manuscript to an online data repository such as Pure for anyone to read. (This is the last word document you sent the publisher prior to copyediting and typesetting.)

The UK Reproducibility Network have a great introducing the open research practice of open access and why it is important:

Why do it?

  • Research Culture

Paywalls prevent people from reading your research because not every institution can afford to pay for subscriptions to every journal. This means that much of the research conducted is inaccessible to researchers who don’t have access to libraries with large budgets, such as those in the global south, or to patients who want to learn more about their own conditions.

Unsurprisingly, Open Access articles are read and cited more, allowing them to make more impact in the academic community and to interested parties, such as patients.

Choosing to publish Open Access means that you are participating in open research practices and a movement that aims to improve research culture. These practices improve research rigour by being as transparent as possible about how research is done.

Publishing Open Access is one element of open research; you can see it as the front door to wider open research practices.  

  • Funder requirements

Publishing Open Access is required by some funders like the UKRI’s Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK. These organisations provide funds to cover Gold Open Access costs for the research they have funded. You can find out if you can request these funds by contacting your institutions library and filling out an open access form (see also University of Bristol Article processing charge guidance).

If this is the case, your funder will commonly ask you to:

  • apply a CC-BY licence,
  • acknowledge your funding by quoting their name and the grant number in the article
  • provide a data access statement for any data you created to write the article.

It is important that you include this information and that you publish your article Gold Open Access because this is a condition of their funding your work. Seek advice from your institutional OA team for the specific details of funder requirements so that they can help you understand them more (see also University of Bristol Open Access Policies). Note, not complying may lead to a funder blacklisting an institution or imposing financial penalties.

  • Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2029

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the UKs system for assessing the quality and impact of UK research. We’re still waiting to hear exactly what the Open Access requirements are going to be for REF 2029. However, we currently need to ensure that we upload the Author Accepted Manuscript to Pure within 3 months of its acceptance for the article to be eligible to be submitted as part of REF.

Many institutions, including Bristol, have developed policies to support researchers to make their work more accessible. At Bristol this is the University’s Scholarly Works Policy, which supports researchers to post the accepted version of articles to the online repository (Pure) in a way that meets REF and funder requirements. If you do not manage to upload your article in time, then there are sometimes ‘exceptions’ that can be applied, and your library team can help you with this.

What might this mean for choosing where you place your work?

Publishing Open Access benefits society and is part of your duty as a good researcher. The good news is that you can choose how your work appears by making choices about where you publish.

Although Green Open Access publication is great and can be cited in the same way as a journal’s formatted article, most people prefer to have a free version of their article available on the publisher’s website.

If you want this to happen, there are a couple of different routes you can take:

Diamond Open Access: no fees to authors or to readers, making all research free to read and free to publish. These journals are typically funded by libraries and scholarly organisations.

Gold Open Access: final published version of the research is made open access on the publisher’s webpage in exchange for a fee. If you don’t have funding, you can often still publish Gold Open Access (where the library pays a fee). As part of the journal packages your library buys for you to read, OA teams can make articles in certain journals Gold Open Access. These are known as ‘Read and Publish’ agreements. Your library will often have a directory where you can check whether the journal you are interested in is covered, e.g. UoB Read and Publish deal finder tool.

If you want to make the most of your research, then incorporate choices about Open Access into your journal selection process. That way, it can support you to communicate your research as widely as possible!

More author the blog author:

Dr Kate Holmes advocates for Open Access as a Research Support Librarian. She uses her experience in research to help academics understand more about the benefits of Open Access and the requirements they need to fulfil.