Write Better Together Randomized Trial
Funded Grant
Overview
Affiliation
View All
Overview
description
PROJECT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT Peer-reviewed publications are one of the cornerstones of successful academic research careers. Developing strong writing skills is critical for early-stage investigators (ESIs) because publishing in reputable scientific journals significantly increases the likelihood of successfully navigating critical transition points in their careers, passing third-year review, earning tenure and promotion, and receiving favorable scores on extramural grant applications. Research is often seen as a collaborative endeavor; however, writing is one of the most isolating and challenging scientific tasks for ESIs. Addressing this challenge demands more than individual resilience; it calls for intentional, community-driven solutions that integrate writing support with opportunities for connection. Without targeted interventions, the cycle of isolation and diminished productivity may persist, undermining both the well-being of ESIs and the broader scientific enterprise. Writing-for-publication programs have become commonplace over the past two decades and many attempt to facilitate writing productivity through writing group or writing courses. Writing accountability groups (WAGs) provide semi-structured, peer supported environments where participants set goals, share progress, and engage in regular writing sessions. Conversely, structured writing courses emphasize improving writing skills and train participants how to write a scientific manuscript from start to finish. WAGs have emerged as a promising intervention to enhancing scientific productivity and social connectedness. Despite their growing popularity and anecdotal success, WAGs have yet to be rigorously evaluated against other scalable writing interventions. Understanding their comparative impact on both productivity and researcher well-being is essential to guiding evidence-based support for ESIs. The objective of this proposed study, Writing Better Together Randomized Trial, is to evaluate the differential impact of WAGs versus a structured writing course on scholarly productivity, writing self-efficacy, and social connectedness among early-stage investigators (ESIs) via a 6-month randomized controlled trial (RCT). The proposed interventions will be guided by an integrative conceptual model informed by Goal Setting Theory Communities of Practice Theory, and Expectancy-Value Theory. ESIs (n=120) will be randomly assigned to 1) a virtual WAG + a virtual, asynchronous manuscript writing course or 2) the virtual, asynchronous manuscript writing course alone. Outcomes will be measured at 6- and 12-, 18-, and 24-months post randomization. We propose to test the central hypothesis that assignment to the virtual WAG + virtual asynchronous manuscript writing course compared to the virtual manuscript writing course alone will have favorable effects on scientific publication rates.
