An investigation of the difficulties faced by practitioner researchers in publication

This work based study is not only a stand alone project but can also be read in conjunction with other work based studies carried out by members of the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS) Doctorate Group. This group worked through the National Centre for Work Based Learning Partnerships (NCWBLP) based at Middlesex University. The customisation of the studies was carried out by the Professional Development Foundation (PDF). The purpose of the group was to facilitate the development of postgraduate veterinary education in general practice in order to maintain lifelong learning within the profession. Within this framework this study sets out to investigate the difficulties faced by practitioner researchers in publication. The aim of the study is to increase not only the number of manuscripts published by practitioners but also to increase the number of practitioners carrying out publication. To achieve these aims the author has evaluated the existing veterinary peer reviewed journal journals with a view to answering the question “does the veterinary profession in the UK need a new peer reviewed journal?” The author of the study has written a book to aid practitioners with publication. The sparse veterinary literature is reviewed together with the relevant medical literature. A historical analysis was carried out on the four most commonly read veterinary peer reviewed journals, the Veterinary Record (VR), the Equine Veterinary Journal (EVJ), Equine Veterinary Education (EV) and the Journal of Small Animal Practice (JSAP). Five separate case studies were carried out on successful practitioner authors, successful practitioner authors, editors of peer reviewed veterinary journals, newly qualified veterinary surgeons and final year veterinary students. The quantitative and qualitative results were recorded ethically and analysed. These results were then critically discussed and commented on. The methods of learning, experienced by the practitioner author were reflected upon. Conclusions were then reached. These showed that the main reason for lack of publication by practitioners was the relatively few manuscripts submitted by relatively few practitioners. There was no bias shown by editors against practitioner authors. Some improvements were suggested for the journals but it was concluded that at the present time there was no need for a new veterinary peer reviewed journal. However EVJ, EVE and JSAP have agreed to have a major drive to increase practitioner input. The benefits of the project to the profession were recorded. They included a regular updated list of successful practitioner authors willing to help less experienced colleagues, with publication, to be shown on the web page of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS). The agreement of the RCVS scientific committee to encourage in-practice research by co-ordinating funding. The agreement of DEFRA to regularly fund a residential course on in-practice research for practitioners at Cambridge Veterinary School and to fund resulting pieces of practitioner research. The agreement of the editor of the VR to appoint a sub-editor to help with publication of these projects. The whole doctorate group project, of designing an award for advanced veterinary general practice, was accomplished. The modular certificate was accepted by the RCVS. This certificate was designed to have other modules added. The project by the author included the designing and acceptance of three additional modules to allow an award in equine dentistry. Lastly a secondary finding of the project, that newly qualified veterinary graduates were under considerable pressure in practice, was exposed. The author at a local level took action. The British Veterinary Association observed this. Consultations were carried out. A new graduate mentoring project was then successfully launched nationally. The author played a key role in this initiative both nationally and locally.