Use of electronic anatomy practical examinations for remediating “at risk” students

Restrictive laboratory scheduling, an increasing number of human cadaver‐based anatomy courses and a reduction in the curricular time allotted to anatomy courses have created problems with cadaver laboratory access at the University of New England. This article describes a combination of anatomy testing and grading strategies to allow “at risk” (borderline failing) students an opportunity to remediate their lowest set of examination scores and pass their anatomy course. An alternative electronic practical examination for these students provided flexibility in laboratory scheduling, thereby increasing laboratory access for other students taking concurrent courses. Specifically, the electronic examinations allowed for a reduction in the amount of time the cadaver laboratory is locked down for examination purposes. Masters‐level occupational therapy (MOT) students, physician assistant students (MPA), and doctoral level physical therapy (DPT) students participated in a prosection‐based human cadaver laboratory and take cadaver‐based practical examinations as part of their anatomy course. Students who were not performing at a passing level for their curriculum (69.5% for MOT and MPA, 79.5% for DPT) were given an opportunity to remediate their lowest set of multiple choice and practical examinations using the previous year's multiple choice examination and a new electronic practical examination. When the original cadaver‐based practical and multiple choice examination scores were replaced with the remedial electronic practical examination and remedial multiple choice examination scores, 75% (24/32) of these students were able to successfully remediate their academic deficiencies and pass their anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ 3:46–49, 2010. © 2009 American Association of Anatomists.     

Should editors influence journal impact factors?

The journal impact factor is widely used as a performance indicator for single authors (despite its unsuitably in this respect). Hence, authors are increasingly exercised if there is any sign that impact factors are being manipulated. Editors who ask authors to cite relevant papers from their own journal are accused of acting unethically. This is surprising because, besides publishers, authors are the primary beneficiaries of an increased impact factor of the journal in which they publish, and because the citation process is biased anyway. There is growing evidence that quality and relevance are not always the reasons for choosing references. Authors' biases and personal environments as well as strategic considerations are major factors. As long as an editor does not force authors to cite irrelevant papers from their own journal, I consider it as a matter of caretaking for the journal and its authors if an editor brings recent papers to the authors' attention. It would be unfair to authors and disloyal to the publisher if an editor did not try to increase the impact of his/her own journal.