A larger listing of disciplines and citation styles can be accessed on OWL at Purdue website .
The citation style you choose will largely be dictated by the discipline in which you're writing. For many assignments your instructor will suggest or require a certain style. If you're not sure which one to use, it's always best to check with your instructor or, if you are submitting a manuscript, the publisher to see if they require a certain style. In many cases, you may not be required to use any particular style as long as you pick one and use it consistently. If you have some flexibility, use the guide below to help you decide.
When in doubt, try: Chicago Notes
When in doubt, try: MLA
When in doubt, try: APA or Chicago Notes
When in doubt, try: CSE Name-Year or CSE Citation-Sequence
When in doubt, try: CSE Name-Year or IEEE
See also: Additional Citation Styles , for styles used by specific engineering associations.
If you’re enrolled in classes that each require a different citation style, it can get confusing really fast! The tools on the Quick Citation Generators section can help you format citations quickly in many different styles.
General Education
Not sure which path your essay should follow? Formatting an essay may not be as interesting as choosing a topic to write about or carefully crafting elegant sentences, but it’s an extremely important part of creating a high-quality paper. In this article, we’ll explain essay formatting rules for three of the most popular essay styles: MLA, APA, and Chicago.
For each, we’ll do a high-level overview of what your essay’s structure and references should look like, then we include a comparison chart with nitty-gritty details for each style, such as which font you should use for each and whether they’re a proponent of the Oxford comma. We also include information on why essay formatting is important and what you should do if you’re not sure which style to use.
Does it really matter which font size you use or exactly how you cite a source in your paper? It can! Style formats were developed as a way to standardize how pieces of writing and their works cited lists should look.
Why is this necessary? Imagine you’re a teacher, researcher, or publisher who reviews dozens of papers a week. If the papers didn’t follow the same formatting rules, you could waste a lot of time trying to figure out which sources were used, if certain information is a direct quote or paraphrased, even who the paper’s author is. Having essay formatting rules to follow makes things easier for everyone involved. Writers can follow a set of guidelines without trying to decide for themselves which formatting choices are best, and readers don’t need to go hunting for the information they’re trying to find.
Next, we’ll discuss the three most common style formats for essays.
MLA style was designed by the Modern Language Association, and it has become the most popular college essay format for students writing papers for class. It was originally developed for students and researchers in the literature and language fields to have a standardized way of formatting their papers, but it is now used by people in all disciplines, particularly humanities. MLA is often the style teachers prefer their students to use because it has simple, clear rules to follow without extraneous inclusions often not needed for school papers. For example, unlike APA or Chicago styles, MLA doesn’t require a title page for a paper, only a header in the upper left-hand corner of the page.
MLA style doesn’t have any specific requirements for how to write your essay, but an MLA format essay will typically follow the standard essay format of an introduction (ending with a thesis statement), several body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
One of the nice things about creating your works cited for MLA is that all references are structured the same way, regardless of whether they’re a book, newspaper, etc. It’s the only essay format style that makes citing references this easy! Here is a guide on how to cite any source in MLA format. When typing up your works cited, here are a few MLA format essay rules to keep in mind:
APA stands for the American Psychological Association. This format type is most often used for research papers, specifically those in behavioral sciences (such as psychology and neuroscience) and social sciences (ranging from archeology to economics). Because APA is often used for more research-focused papers, they have a more specific format to follow compared to, say, MLA style.
All APA style papers begin with a title page, which contains the title of the paper (in capital letters), your name, and your institutional affiliation (if you’re a student, then this is simply the name of the school you attend). The APA recommends the title of your paper not be longer than 12 words.
After your title page, your paper begins with an abstract. The abstract is a single paragraph, typically between 150 to 250 words, that sums up your research. It should include the topic you’re researching, research questions, methods, results, analysis, and a conclusion that touches on the significance of the research. Many people find it easier to write the abstract last, after completing the paper.
After the abstract comes the paper itself. APA essay format recommends papers be short, direct, and make their point clearly and concisely. This isn’t the time to use flowery language or extraneous descriptions. Your paper should include all the sections mentioned in the abstract, each expanded upon.
Following the paper is the list of references used. Unlike MLA style, in APA essay format, every source type is referenced differently. So the rules for referencing a book are different from those for referencing a journal article are different from those referencing an interview. Here’s a guide for how to reference different source types in APA format . Your references should begin on a new page that says “REFERENCES” at the top, centered. The references should be listed in alphabetical order.
Chicago style (sometimes referred to as “Turabian style”) was developed by the University of Chicago Press and is typically the least-used by students of the three major essay style formats. The Chicago Manual of Style (currently on its 17th edition) contains within its 1000+ pages every rule you need to know for this style. This is a very comprehensive style, with a rule for everything. It’s most often used in history-related fields, although many people refer to The Chicago Manual of Style for help with a tricky citation or essay format question. Many book authors use this style as well.
Like APA, Chicago style begins with a title page, and it has very specific format rules for doing this which are laid out in the chart below. After the title page may come an abstract, depending on whether you’re writing a research paper or not. Then comes the essay itself. The essay can either follow the introduction → body → conclusion format of MLA or the different sections included in the APA section. Again, this depends on whether you’re writing a paper on research you conducted or not.
Unlike MLA or APA, Chicago style typically uses footnotes or endnotes instead of in-text or parenthetical citations. You’ll place the superscript number at the end of the sentence (for a footnote) or end of the page (for an endnote), then have an abbreviated source reference at the bottom of the page. The sources will then be fully referenced at the end of the paper, in the order of their footnote/endnote numbers. The reference page should be titled “Bibliography” if you used footnotes/endnotes or “References” if you used parenthetical author/date in-text citations.
Below is a chart comparing different formatting rules for APA, Chicago, and MLA styles.
or ). | |||
including the title page. | |||
What if your teacher hasn’t specified which essay format they want you to use? The easiest way to solve this problem is simply to ask your teacher which essay format they prefer. However, if you can’t get ahold of them or they don’t have a preference, we recommend following MLA format. It’s the most commonly-used essay style for students writing papers that aren’t based on their own research, and its formatting rules are general enough that a teacher of any subject shouldn’t have a problem with an MLA format essay. The fact that this style has one of the simplest sets of rules for citing sources is an added bonus!
Thinking about taking an AP English class? Read our guide on AP English classes to learn whether you should take AP English Language or AP English Literature (or both!)
Compound sentences are an importance sentence type to know. Read our guide on compound sentences for everything you need to know about compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences.
Need ideas for a research paper topic? Our guide to research paper topics has over 100 topics in ten categories so you can be sure to find the perfect topic for you.
How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League
How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA
How to Write an Amazing College Essay
What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?
ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?
When should you take the SAT or ACT?
Get Your Free
Find Your Target SAT Score
Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests
Score 800 on SAT Math
Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing
Score 600 on SAT Math
Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing
Find Your Target ACT Score
Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests
Get a 36 on ACT English
Get a 36 on ACT Math
Get a 36 on ACT Reading
Get a 36 on ACT Science
Get a 24 on ACT English
Get a 24 on ACT Math
Get a 24 on ACT Reading
Get a 24 on ACT Science
Stay Informed
Get the latest articles and test prep tips!
Christine graduated from Michigan State University with degrees in Environmental Biology and Geography and received her Master's from Duke University. In high school she scored in the 99th percentile on the SAT and was named a National Merit Finalist. She has taught English and biology in several countries.
Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!
Still have questions? Leave a comment
Add Comment
Enter your email id to get the downloadable right in your inbox!
Need editing and proofreading services, persuasive writing guide: techniques & examples.
Are you a student who needs to write persuasive essays? Or are you someone who works in a field that requires you to persuade people to take action or convince them about something? In both cases, you might benefit from learning what persuasive writing is and how to use it for success.
In this article, we explore the definition of persuasive writing and get some persuasive writing tips to improve your writing style.
Need persuasive writing support? Explore our editing services. Learn more
Persuasive writing is a style of writing that focuses on convincing the reader to agree with a specific opinion or point of view or take a particular action. This form of writing is common in advertising, essays , opinion pieces, and speeches.
It enables the writer to take a clear stand on a given topic. Once the writer takes a stance, they state their opinion and set the tone for the rest of the content. The persuasive writing style relies on logical reasoning and facts (data, statistics, expert opinions, anecdotes, etc.) to ensure the argument sounds believable and cogent.
To achieve the chief goal of persuasive writing, which is convincing the reader to accept a given viewpoint, your content should have certain key elements for adequate impact.
Let us discuss these elements:
In this section, let us study some examples of persuasive writing.
“Imagine a world where everyone has access to clean water. A world where children can go to school without worrying about hunger. A world where people can live their lives free from disease. This is the world we can create by supporting organizations that work to end poverty and inequality.”
“By donating to our organization, you are making a direct impact on the lives of people in need. Your contribution will help provide essential resources, such as food, shelter, and healthcare, to those who are struggling. Together, we can build a more just and equitable world.”
“I had the best time visiting New York last summer. The food was amazing, the people were friendly, and there were so many things to do. You should definitely check out the Statue of Liberty. I’m sure you’ll love it as much as I did. You should visit New York this year!”
Persuasive writing is a powerful tool that can be used to influence readers, change opinions and attitudes, and prompt action. The benefits of employing this writing style can bring about several favorable changes to your content.
Let us discuss some key advantages of employing this writing style:
By now, it is clear that persuasive writing is highly useful in various settings. However, without persuasive writing tips and techniques, it might seem challenging to employ this writing style with flair.
So here are some persuasive writing techniques that you can use to ensure your content engages its audience and compels them to change their minds or take action.
The persuasive style of writing creates a deep impact on the reader when it is done correctly. Educators, motivational speakers, advertisers, politicians, and many others use it in everyday communication to influence and inspire their audiences.
Students frequently use it to write argumentative essays , and they can benefit from learning how to write in a persuasive style.
Let us quickly understand the importance of persuasive writing:
Convincing your audience to accept a point of view or think in a specific way is quite tough. When you add the complexity of communicating your message to multiple entities or stakeholders, the problem increases manifold.
In such cases, persuasive writing can come to your rescue. However, to ensure it is effective, you must steer clear of certain common mistakes. Here are some things you should avoid:
Here is a list of sample persuasive writing prompts that you can study to independently write prompts:
General
Social issues
Personal experiences
Current events
Persuasive writing can make you an influential communicator. By recognizing the power it wields and using it to skillfully convey your message to the intended audience, you can change the minds of not only individuals but also diverse groups.
For documents that matter, like college admissions essays, you should opt for professional editing and proofreading . You can also benefit from editing and proofreading services for various other documents. PaperTrue, a leading SaaS-based solutions provider, offers artificial intelligence-assisted editing and proofreading. Talk to our team to learn more about our products.
Want to continue reading? Here are some other articles for you:
What is the purpose of transition words in persuasive writing, why is persuasive writing considered nonfiction, why does persuasive writing sound powerful, what is the purpose of using rhetorical questions in persuasive writing.
Found this article helpful?
Leave a Comment: Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published.
Your organization needs a technical editor: here’s why, your guide to the best ebook readers in 2024, writing for the web: 7 expert tips for web content writing.
Subscribe to our Newsletter
Get carefully curated resources about writing, editing, and publishing in the comfort of your inbox.
How to Copyright Your Book?
If you’ve thought about copyrighting your book, you’re on the right path.
© 2024 All rights reserved
BMC Medical Education volume 24 , Article number: 1028 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
Metrics details
This study focuses on the factors that encouraged engagement in research activities, as well as the barriers that restricted their involvement, until the final year of study at Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy Cluj-Napoca, Faculty of Medicine. The main objectives of this study are to investigate potential disparities in research culture and student engagement in various research opportunities between Romanian and international medical graduates, as well as to conduct an examination of the observed patterns across various graduating years (2021–2023).
A cross-sectional investigation was conducted among graduate students of the Faculty of Medicine at the Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. From 2021 to 2023, all graduate students from the Romanian and international programs of the faculty were asked to participate in the study by filling out an anonymous online questionnaire. The final sample included 572 participants, of whom 392 were students from the Romanian section and 180 were students from international programs.
Motivation and personal interest drive research engagement, according to over half of graduates. For over one-third of graduates, institutional elements like financial support and education also play a major role, as does the desire to enhance their curriculum vitae. More than 25% of graduates value community influence, 70% of graduates attended medical congresses, 12–15% presented papers at medical conferences, 23% wrote medical articles, 10–15% published at least one scientific paper in medical journals, and 20% participated in medical school research projects. Comparative analysis showed that Romanian students start research earlier, attend more medical conferences, present posters, collect data for studies, and are more interested in publishing graduation thesis data in scientific journals. To encourage international students to participate in research, the study found that colleagues’ examples were more important, and both time and funds were key barriers. The research also shows that 2022 and 2023 graduates will organize more scientific conferences. According to the study, 2022 graduates began their research earlier than others.
To increase student engagement in research activities, medical schools should prioritize the promotion of positive factors, minimize common barriers, offer customized support and resources, encourage collaborative research activities, and facilitate cross-cultural learning.
Peer Review reports
Medical schools play a crucial role in providing professionals with the necessary knowledge and skills to excel in their careers and contribute to the healthcare system [ 1 ]. The conventional medical education structure has created skilled and scientifically grounded healthcare professionals, but it is essential to adapt learning methods to align with new technological advances, diagnostic strategies, and medical treatments [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. As healthcare environments change, medical education must advance to meet the evolving needs of patients and healthcare professionals. To stay informed about medical innovations, medical students must develop practical skills, synthesize information, and analyze vast amounts of information. They should also maximize interprofessional learning possibilities and balance the risks and benefits of various treatment options to provide the best possible patient care [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Currently, the requirement for enhanced competence in evidence-based medicine and concerns regarding the declining representation of physician-scientists have emphasized the necessity of promoting and encouraging research in medical education [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ].
Research involves data collection and analysis, gathering key information, and then analyzing and interpreting that information according to academic and professional procedures. This suggests that research helps students develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills, which are crucial for healthcare practitioners, and it is essential to actively involve and motivate the upcoming generation of physician-scientists from earlier stages [ 12 , 13 ]. Throughout the years, medical students have produced important innovations that have had a significant influence on current medicine through the adoption of evidence-based practice. Students made notable progress in several areas, such as the discovery of heparin, Raynaud’s disease, brachial plexus palsy, the atrioventricular node, ether anesthesia, penicillin, and insulin. Those historical examples play a crucial role in sustaining students’ motivation and developing their enthusiasm for excellence [ 14 ].
Scholarly research training programs help undergraduate medical students critically assess new information, communicate, and share research findings, making valuable contributions to the advancement of medical knowledge [ 15 ]. According to Yin et al., medical schools must prioritize research by offering enough opportunity, motivation, and assistance for student engagement [ 16 ]. Previous studies have investigated the training and participation of medical students in curricular and extracurricular research activities. Since the 1960s, some medical schools, such as Duke University and Stanford University, have offered research programs that accompany traditional education, widening students’ scientific knowledge and recruiting them to academic medicine [ 17 ]. Many medical schools nowadays offer students either mandatory or optional research alternatives that enhance their research skills. The Bologna process contributed to a restructuring of the medical undergraduate degree in Europe. It was launched in 1999 by several European countries with the goal of improving the acceptance and quality of higher education qualifications in the region. According to the Bologna process, European universities must evaluate scientific training and include research in their undergraduate medical degrees. As a result, medical students must complete a research project in order to graduate [ 8 , 18 ]. To promote supervised research, Asian universities have implemented graduation requirements, which generally require undergraduate participation for a semester or academic year, either individually or with the support of the government [ 19 ]. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) conducted a survey among 147 medical schools in the United States between 2017 and 2018, which revealed that 65 of them mandated medical students to conduct research [ 20 ]. On the other hand, extracurricular research programs (ERPs), such as summer research programs, Honours programs, or any other student research organizations worldwide, such as Harvard College Undergraduate Research Association, Cambridge University Students’ Clinical Research Society, and John B. Graham Medical Student Research Society, have been set up by many medical schools to encourage students to do research, develop an academic mindset, and become future doctors who are also scientists [ 21 , 22 ].
Although the level to which medical graduates participate in research activities is influenced by a variety of factors and obstacles. Prior research has identified that to encourage and sustain the engagement of medical students in research, it is imperative to identify the fundamental factors that motivate their research efforts throughout the early years of their medical education [ 23 ]. In their study, Ommering et al. investigate the motivation of medical students to conduct research, and their findings suggest that students may have both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. For extrinsic motivations, medical students may engage in research to enhance their training and career opportunities, such as securing a competitive residency. Furthermore, there is proof that students can be really interested in research and contribute out of satisfaction, as regards intrinsic motivations. Self-efficacy, curiosity, and challenge, prior training in scientific research, supportive teachers, and an environment that encourages research are the valuable motivational variables [ 23 , 24 ]. While there is a tendency to refine involvement in research during medical school, the literature highlights both institutional and non-institutional barriers to successful participation. Previous studies have found several common barriers to research involvement, such as time constraints, insufficient funds, insufficient support from mentors, and a lack of knowledge and experience. Thus, Andrea and Sarah Cuschieri found that medical graduates often receive inadequate assistance and direction from faculty members and mentors, insufficient resources for carrying out research, minimal opportunities to participate in scientific initiatives, and a lack of motivation [ 25 ]. Griffin and Hindocha also highlighted barriers perceived by medical students to publishing, such as a lack of opportunities to conduct research, insufficient support from seniors, limited education on writing manuscripts, limited time, insufficient knowledge of publication standards, and insufficient research infrastructure [ 26 ]. Stone et al. also demonstrated the existence of institutional and non-institutional barriers to conducting research during undergraduate medical school. These barriers include time constraints, a lack of mentors, inadequate support, limited access to resources, curriculum design, a lack of skills and self-efficacy, awareness and motivation, funding, internet access, and gender and cultural issues, all of which hinder medical students’ engagement in research activities [ 9 ]. Furthermore, in prior studies, the unequal attainment gap among ethnic groups begged serious concerns about performance differences, therefore affecting medical education and the medical profession. The ethnicity of medical students often influences learning and performance due to limited educational resources, unadapted curricula, and medical school populations [ 27 , 28 , 29 ].
According to our knowledge, little is known about the practices, factors, and barriers affecting research engagement among medical graduates, especially when comparing national and international students. There are no other studies on medical undergraduate research in Romania, except for our previous study, which examined the first-time research perspectives and behaviors of students in their third and fifth years of study. The previous findings indicated that Romanian medical students value research possibilities, which promotes institutional attempts to support their curricular and extracurricular research [ 30 ]. This present study can be considered a continuation of the first investigation, as it aims to examine the factors that influence the engagement of undergraduate medical students in research, as well as the research practices performed by graduates until they complete their final year at the Faculty of Medicine of Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Cluj-Napoca. This is one of the most prestigious medical universities in Romania. The university’s Faculty of Medicine admits three cohorts per year, and there are programs offered in various languages: Romanian, English, and French. The student selection process varies between programs. The Romanian program selects students for admission through a written exam. International applicants to the English and French language programs are admitted based on their academic performance and personal accomplishments. Although they share clinical areas and classrooms, local and foreign students do not show up to attend the same seminars. Every cohort has different clinical rotations and class schedules, so their academic activities never cross. Each year, the university’s Faculty of Medicine admits a specific number of students into the medical program. For example, in the last ten years, the admitted number of students per year varied between 500 and 600 students per year, until recent 4 years, when the university admitted approximately 800 students per year into its medical programs. The proportion of students has an equal distribution of 50% Romanian students and 50% international students [ 31 ]. The Cluj-Napoca Faculty of Medicine offers six-year undergraduate medical education that includes, in the first year’s curricula, a module on medical biostatistics and, in the second year’s curricula, a module on scientific research methodology. Until the final year, the students must prepare and present a demanding scientific report known as a graduation research thesis in accordance with the Bologna process. Teachers also offer guidance and support throughout extracurricular research.
This study aims to investigate the factors that encourage student engagement in research, as well as the barriers that limit their decision to participate in research. Furthermore, in terms of practices, behaviors for both mandatory and optional research activities have been followed. Furthermore, socio-demographic aspects were examined. This research would be valuable in creating an overview of the research motivation, barriers, and best practices for fostering research involvement in the current situation, while there is a persistent pedlary for medical students to become physician-scientists in the context of the physician-scientist deficit worldwide. This research seeks to provide insights into the research culture, resources available, and levels of student involvement in a medical school, along with potential differences between Romanian and international students in three graduating cohorts (2021–2023). Furthermore, examining the trends across graduation years may shed light on how medical education and research opportunities are evolving. If we understand students’ perspectives, we may use evidence-based ways to increase medical students’ interest and ameliorate barriers in research to prepare the future generation of physician-scientists.
The current research aimed to use a survey with 5-point Likert scales and multiple-choice questions to evaluate factors influencing research involvement and scientific activities among graduates from 2021 to 2023, along with exploring their socio-demographic characteristics. This study provided a focused examination of the following research objectives:
Identification of socio-demographic indices: gender, section, and year of faculty graduation.
Evaluation of factors that encourage student participation in research activities: personal influence, community influence, educational influences, and financial influences.
Evaluation of the barriers that limit medical students research participation: personal influence, educational influences, and financial influence.
Identifying research behaviors: the year of debut, complexity of research activity, contributions, participation in scientific congresses, participation in the process of writing a scientific article, aspects of publishing graduation thesis data in a scientific journal, and interest in participating in research activities after graduation.
Comparing factors for involvement in research and scientific activities between Romanian and international students and analyzing them throughout time from 2021 to 2023.
Study sample and data collection.
This research is a component of a larger study centered around evaluating the engagement of medical students in research and voluntary activities. The project received ethical approval from the Ethics Commission of Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy under Approval Number DEP27/03.11.2021.
A cross-sectional investigation was conducted among graduate students of the Faculty of Medicine at the Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. From 2021 to 2023, all graduate students from the Romanian and international sections of the faculty were asked to participate in the study by filling out an anonymous online questionnaire (a total of 1878 students were invited). We chose to investigate the Romanian and international cohorts separately in order to learn more about how their educational and cultural backgrounds influence their research attitudes and practices. We separately looked at these groups to identify their unique requirements and obstacles in order to create focused strategies to increase student research participation. The questionnaire was distributed using the Microsoft Teams platform, which is commonly used by all affiliated members of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iuliu Hatieganu. The students received an invitation explaining that participation was voluntary, and they agreed to participate by filling out the questionnaire. Those who did not wish to participate did not complete the questionnaire.
For this research project, we specifically designed an online survey to evaluate socio-demographic factors (age, gender), academic aspects (section, year of graduation), opinions about factors that encourage or limit involvement in research, and the research practices of undergraduate medical students. To identify common themes and factors reported in previous studies, we conducted a thorough literature review, which helped us derive the motivating factors and barriers related to student involvement in research. This influenced the development of our survey questions. Factors that encourage medical students involvement in research are the following: personal influence (motivation and personal interest, curriculum vitae improvement motivation), community influences (example of other colleagues), educational influences (teacher presentation of research participation options, teacher mentoring and support, medical research student courses or training), and financial influence (the existence of research grants for undergraduate students, monetary remuneration); The response choices were presented on a five-point scale that varied from “not at all” to “to a very high extent.” The barriers to medical students’ involvement in research are as follows: personal influence (lack of time caused by required medical training courses or internships during medical studies, lack of interest or lack of motivation for research), educational influences (difficulty finding a research coordinator, team, or research project), and financial influence (lack of or insufficient financial compensation for work done). The response choices were presented on a five-point Likert scale that varied from “not at all” to “to a very high extent.” Additionally, the questionnaire examined the research practices of medical students as follows: the year of study when students started their research activity, if they had been engaged in research projects only for their graduation thesis, or if they performed more complex research activities till graduation. The questionnaire asked about the contributions of students to research activities (data review of scientific literature, development of research ideas and hypotheses, research methodology and protocol, data gathering tools, statistical analysis, laboratory experiments, abstract and presentation development for scientific conferences, and writing medical articles). Moreover, the questionnaire asked about students’ involvement in medical congresses, if they had presentations such as oral or poster presentations (the response choices were presented on a four-point scale that varied from “not at all” to “more than three times”), if they had been involved in writing scientific articles (the response choices were presented on a four-point scale that varied from “not at all” to “more than three times”), or if they were publishing various types of scientific articles (publishing editorials or letters to the editor, reviews, original articles, clinical case presentations), and if they were first authors or co-authors. The students were asked if they had participated in research projects during medical school (the response choices were presented on a four-point scale that varied from “not at all” to “more than three times”). Additionally, the questionnaire asked about the interest in publishing graduation thesis data in a scientific publication. The questionnaire also evaluated interest in enhancing knowledge of proper scientific article writing, interest in better comprehension of abstract writing, and interest in understanding the publishing rules of a scientific paper. The questionnaire aimed to gather data on motivation and interest to participate in research activities after completing medical studies (with response options being ‘Yes,’ ‘No,’ or ‘I do not know’). Students received the questionnaire in Romanian, English, and French, and the average time to complete it was 15–20 minutes. We assessed the reliability of the questionnaire using internal consistency and found Cronbach’s alpha for each index. We found that the Research Involvement Index, which included 6 items, had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.74; the Index of Factors Encouraging Student Research, which included 9 items, had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.71; and the Research Involvement Barriers Index, which included 5 items, had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70. Each of the three indexes indicates good internal consistency. Our previous study, which examined the perspectives and behaviors of medical students in their third and fifth years of study for the first time, also tested the questionnaire. We made minor revisions to align with the actual research questions, thereby enhancing the questionnaire’s comprehensibility and reliability.
The prevalence and mean values were calculated for the investigated topics separately for the Romanian section and international section, as well as for graduates from the 2021, 2022, and 2023 generations. Chi2 tests and t-tests were used to analyze differences among students in the Romanian and International sections, as well as among graduates from the 2021, 2022, and 2023 generations. Three types of indexes were developed to provide greater clarity into the factors influencing involvement in research and research practices.
An index of encouraging student research factors was developed by summing the scores (to a very high extent, coded + 2, to a high extent, coded + 1, I do not know, coded 0, to a low extent, coded − 1, not at all, coded − 2) of the following criteria: motivation and personal interest, curriculum vitae improvement motivation, examples of other colleagues, teacher presentations of research participation options, teacher mentoring and support, medical research student courses or training, the existence of research grants for undergraduate students, and monetary remuneration. The minimum value was − 16, and the maximum was + 16.
An index of research involvement barriers was developed by summing the scores (to a very high extent, coded + 2, to a high extent, coded + 1, I do not know, coded 0, to a low extent, coded − 1, not at all, coded − 2) of the following criteria: lack of time caused by required medical training courses or internships during medical studies, lack of interest or lack of motivation for research, difficulty finding a research coordinator, team, or research project, and lack of or insufficient financial compensation for work done. The minimum value was − 8, and the maximum was + 8.
An index for the involvement of medical students in research (research involvement index) was developed by summing the scores of involvements in the following research activities: participation at medical congresses, presenting papers at medical congresses (oral or poster presentations), participation in writing a scientific article, article publications, and participation in research projects. The available responses for each issue are 0 (no) and 1 (yes); therefore, the minimum value obtained for each participant was 0 and the maximum value obtained was 5.
We used forward selection in two stepwise multivariate linear regression analyses to find out what factors influenced the variations in the Research Involvement Barriers Index and the Index of factors that encourage student research. The dependent variables were the index of factors that encourage student research and the research involvement barriers index. For both, the independent variables were age, gender (coded 1–males, 2–females), and sections (Romanian section, international section). The analyses were performed separately for each index. Another stepwise multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted using forward selection to determine factors that contributed to the variation in the research involvement index. The dependent variables were the research involvement index, and the independent variables were age, gender (coded 1–males, 2–females), sections (Romanian section, international section), the index of factors that encourage student research, and the Research Involvement Barriers Index.
The data were analyzed using SPSS 22 statistical software, and significant findings are presented at a significance level of 0.05.
The final sample included 572 participants, which represents a response rate of around 30%. Of the participants, 215 (37.6%) were male and 357 (62.4%) were female, aged between 22 and 54 years (mean 25.25, SD 2.1). Ranking them according to the study section, 392 (68.5%) were students from the Romanian section and 180 (31.5%) were students from the international sections. Ranking them according to the years of graduation, 232 (40.5%) students graduated in 2021, 172 (30%) in 2022, and 168 (29.5%) in 2023.
Both Romanian and international students emphasize motivation, personal interest, and teacher mentoring and support as significant factors in research participation. Romanian students, in proportion to 67%, value motivation and personal interest, and 59% value teacher mentoring, while international students, in proportion to 58%, value motivation and personal interest, and 47% value teacher mentoring. Over one-third of Romanian students highlight CV improvement, research opportunities presented by teachers, and research training. Also, among international students, 40% report research training as influential, with around one-third citing CV improvement, examples of colleagues, and student research grants. The major barriers identified by Romanian students are as follows: 53% mention a lack of time and difficulty finding a research coordinator; 41% mention a lack of interest or motivation; and 20% mention insufficient financial compensation. Regarding the international students, 63% report difficulty finding a research coordinator, and 56% cite a lack of time, with a considerable proportion also noting financial constraints. The index of factors encouraging student research shows that Romanian students have a calculated score that varies between − 14 and + 16, with a mean of 8.38, whereas international students have a score ranging from − 4 to + 16, with a mean of 7.98. No statistically significant difference was seen between the two groups. The research involvement barriers index scores for Romanian students vary between − 6 and + 8, with a mean of 3.43, and for international students, they vary from − 4 to + 8, with a mean of 4.11. No statistically significant difference was seen between the two groups. Table 1 reports detailed information about the factors and barriers that could affect Romanian and international students’ participation in research activities.
Analyzing the answers of all students in the three graduating cohorts, several key factors emerged as influencing their involvement in research activities. The students consistently identified motivation, personal interest, teacher mentoring, and support as significant factors. Between 60% and 67% of all graduates attributed high importance to these factors. Teaching staff’s presentations of research opportunities, CV improvement, and the availability of student research funds enhanced the interest of about 40% of all cohorts of graduates in research. Colleagues’ examples and financial rewards significantly influenced the engagement of about 30% of 2023 graduates and one-third of 2021 and 2022 graduates. Throughout the years, barriers to research involvement remained consistent. Around half of students in all graduating cohorts identified a lack of time and difficulty finding a research coordinator, team, or project as major obstacles. Around 40% of graduates reported a lack of interest or motivation. Between 25% and 33% of graduates identified insufficient financial compensation as a significant barrier. However, the 2023 graduates placed more importance on the influence of examples from colleagues compared to the 2022 graduates. Furthermore, 2022 graduates emphasized the lack of funds as a barrier in comparison to 2021 graduates. The index of factors encouraging student research showed mean scores of 8.45 for 2021 graduates, 7.69 for 2022 graduates, and 8.57 for 2023 graduates, with no statistically significant differences between the groups.
The index of factors encouraging student research shows that 2021 graduates scored between − 7 and + 16, with a mean of 8.45. In comparison, 2022 graduates scored between − 14 and + 16, with a mean score of 7.69, while 2023 graduates scored between − 8 and + 16, with a mean score of 8.57. There was no statistically significant difference observed between the two groups. The Research Involvement Barriers Index scores for 2021 graduates range from − 6 to + 8, with a mean of 3.44; for 2022 graduates, the scores range from − 4 to + 8, with a mean of 3.78; and for 2023 graduates, the scores vary from − 3 to + 8, with a mean of 3.77. There was no statistically significant difference observed between the groups. Table 2 provides detailed information about the factors and barriers that could affect the students’ participation in research activities in the three graduating cohorts (2021–2023).
Around one-third of students from both sections began participating in research during their sixth year, with Romanian students starting earlier on average (t-test, p < 0.01). About 70% of Romanian and over 80% of international students engaged in research linked to their graduation thesis, with a significant difference between groups (chi-square, p < 0.05). Less than 20% performed more complex research. Romanian students more frequently participated in data collection compared to international students who preferred performing literature reviews (chi-square, p < 0.01). Around 80% of Romanian and less than half of international students attended medical conferences (chi-square, p < 0.01). In proportion, 36% of Romanian and 21% of international students were on the scientific meetings organization staff (chi-square, p < 0.01). Approximately 12% of Romanian and 5% of international students presented posters at scientific conferences (t-test, p < 0.05). One-quarter of Romanian and 20% of international students contributed to the writing of medical research papers, with Romanian students having a higher co-authoring rate (chi-square, p < 0.05). A proportion of 29% of Romanian and 20% of international students were interested in publishing their research data (chi-square, p < 0.05). Overall, 7% of international students and 6% of Romanian students have published their graduation thesis output. The research engagement index was higher for Romanian students (mean 1.53) compared to international students (mean 1.06) (t-test, p < 0.01). Over 80% of students showed interest in improving their skills in scientific writing, with higher interest among Romanian students (chi-square, p < 0.05), and around 60% were interested in post-graduation research activities. Table 3 provides detailed information about research practices and comparative analyses of Romanian and international graduates.
Approximately one-third of each cohort began research in their sixth year, with 2022 graduates starting earlier on average (t-test, p < 0.05). Over 70% of graduates from all years participated in thesis-linked research, while less than 20% conducted more complex research. Around 31–38% of participants reviewed scientific literature, 25% developed research ideas and methodologies, and 28–37% performed data collection. More than one-third of 2021 graduates, as well as 40% of 2022 and 2023 graduates, performed statistical analysis. Most students attended medical congresses, with 12–15% presenting papers, 9% presenting posters, and 6.5–9.9% giving oral presentations. A quarter of 2021 graduates, 42% of 2022 graduates, and 30% of 2023 graduates were on the scientific meetings organization staff, with higher engagement in 2022 and 2023 (chi-square, p < 0.05). Around 23% of graduates contributed to writing medical research papers. About 29% of 2021 graduates and 25% of 2022 and 2023 graduates were interested in publishing their research data, while 6% of the three graduating cohorts had accepted or published articles. Approximately 20% of graduates engaged in faculty research projects, with a mean of 1.3 regarding the research index scores. Interest in improving scientific writing skills was high. Over 79% of graduates showed interest in improving their skills in scientific writing, with higher interest among 2022 and 2023 graduates (chi-square, p < 0.05), and around 60% were interested in post-graduation research activities. Table 4 provides detailed information about practices in research and comparative analysis in the three graduating cohorts (2021–2023).
Regarding aspects associated with involvement in research, the multivariate linear regression findings show that the index of positive factors was higher among female students (standardized beta 0.146, CI = 4.715–7.322, P < 0.01). Additionally, the negative factor index was shown to be higher among female students (standardized beta 0.144, CI = 0.363–1.308, P < 0.01) and in international sections (standardized beta 0.131, CI = 0.296–1.282, P < 0.01). Also, the research index was higher among the Romanian section (standardized beta − 0.174, CI = -0.688–-0.251, P < 0.01).
This study investigates the research factors and practices of students in their final year at Cluj-Napoca’s Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy Faculty of Medicine.
The concept of originality is related to the evaluation of the aspects perceived by medical students regarding the factors that encouraged engagement in research activities, as well as the barriers that restricted their involvement, until the final year of study. It also refers to determining potential disparities in research culture and in student involvement in different types of research opportunities among Romanian and international medical graduates. Furthermore, performing an analysis of the patterns observed across different graduating years (2021–2023) may provide valuable insights into the dynamic nature of medical education and the potential for research advancements.
Ommering et al. found that to encourage and maintain the interest of medical students in research, it is necessary to understand the motivations that drive them to engage in research as well as the specific factors that contribute to their motivation for research [ 23 ]. In this light, our study’s results indicate that personal interest, which represents intrinsic motivation, is the most important factor that significantly encourages student engagement in research. Additionally, the authors of the previous cited study found that students may undertake research for future educational and professional options, such as a desired residency position [ 23 ]. However, our study reveals that the improvement of the curriculum vitae, a representation of extrinsic motivation, appears to have a less significant impact on students’ involvement in research. It’s possible that the lower significance achieved by improving their CV is due to the fact that, in the Romanian medical system, training possibilities and jobs post-graduation are based primarily on exams rather than CVs [ 30 ]. The absence of observed discrepancies between both sections is intriguing because this aspect was anticipated to have a greater impact on students from the international sections as the curriculum vitae continues to have significant importance in the residency applicant assessment process for most graduates globally [ 32 ]. Thus, according to our findings, medical schools should prioritize their students’ personal interests and curiosity in research. This might entail both research classes and practical research activities as part of the teaching program, which should promote curiosity and foster intrinsic motivations early in medical education.
In this study, educational influences, such as the presentation of research participation options by teachers, their mentoring and support, and the organization of medical research student courses or training, have a significant impact on students’ involvement in research. According to Abu-Zaid, teachers who encourage research have a substantial impact on students’ views towards this area and their aspirations for future careers [ 33 ]. However, the significance of teacher mentorship and assistance is perceived to a greater extent by students in the Romanian section. The observed disparity between the sections is unexpected, as both Romanian and international students interested in medical research receive the same guidance and assistance for research participation. This is due to the fact that the “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy actively promotes research activities across all fields and departments. One potential reason for this disparity could be cultural differences in the perception of mentorship. Given their different origins, international graduates could have different expectations and mentorship experiences. Although the university strives to provide comparable mentoring, the increased perceived value of teacher interaction among Romanian students indicates underlying reasons needing further investigation.
Furthermore, when considering financial factors, it is observed that students view the presence of research grants as a significant and favorable factor that encourages their engagement in research. Similar findings were also expressed by Australian students, who said that one of the main elements motivating research activities throughout medical school is financing [ 34 ]. Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy ranks first among Romanian medical universities in the number and value of competitive research grants due to the extraordinary effort of teaching staff collectives, the institutional frame improved by creating the Department for Research and Development, and the more generous financing programs. Most research funding comes from grants and contracts [ 35 ]. However, the results of the present investigation showed that Romanian students expressed a stronger belief that the existence of funds has a higher impact on their engagement in research. Romanian students probably view financing as more significant because of their connections with local funding sources, prior expertise in financially sponsored research projects, cultural and socioeconomic issues, and favorable experiences with financed research. To enhance research engagement, it should provide customized support and resources, encourage collaborative research efforts, and promote cross-cultural learning and idea exchange.
The benefits of collegiality and collaboration, knowledge acquisition, and career-mindedness for medical students were highlighted by Yin et al. in their investigation that examined the effects of graduates’ research experiences on their medical undergraduate colleagues. [ 16 ]. The current study found that the example of other colleagues influences their involvement in research, and the findings vary between the groups under investigation. International students place a higher importance on this factor, probably because they could be more collaborative with their colleagues in the context of their smaller number of colleagues than in the Romanian section. Thus, they could have more chances to work together on research projects and influence each other by personal example. Additionally, the cohort of 2023 graduates showed stronger confidence that the influence of their colleagues’ examples has a greater effect on their research engagement compared to the 2022 graduate cohort. This might be the result of more peer cooperation, more group research projects, or a developing university culture of common academic interests.
The outcomes of our study correspond closely to the available literature; many of the findings regarding barriers are comparable to the results of previous investigations. Key barriers to undergraduate research participation include a lack of knowledge and skills, limited faculty support and funding, as well as structural barriers like time constraints, limited research facilities, and a lack of motivation [ 36 ]. Our findings highlighted that the time constraints caused by time-consuming internships or mandatory medical training courses are the most significant obstacle impeding students’ engagement in research activities. According to our findings, “lack of time” has a greater impact on international students, who may have less time to do research because they must adapt to new educational systems and learn a new language. It is already known that medical curricula are often too rigorous to include sufficient time for extracurricular study [ 37 ]. Siemens et al. also identified a lack of time as a major obstacle to conducting research, citing a demanding school schedule [ 38 ]. Most students perceive the challenge of finding a research coordinator or team and a research project as a significant obstacle. Similar studies on the importance of research mentorship for medical students mirrored our findings [ 38 , 39 ]. In addition, their lack of interest in research and lack of or insufficient financial remuneration are perceived as minor barriers by respondents. Hegde et al. and Kumar et al. also demonstrated similar results, describing barriers such as lack of interest, funding, and poor availability of research mentors that can hinder undergraduate participation in research [ 39 , 40 ]. Developing flexible curricula, enhancing mentoring programs, developing research skills, offering time management support, and improving funding possibilities will help students participate in research without compromising their clinical training or academic responsibilities.
The Boyer Commission’s report on undergraduate medical education emphasizes the importance of integrating scientific research training into medical curricula. This trend has evolved, and currently, research-based learning is widespread. Medical schools engage students in undergraduate research in various ways. Research-driven courses, extracurricular activities, and graduate research projects are examples [ 24 , 41 ]. Medical students at Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy Faculty of Medicine participate in both compulsory research and extracurricular activities. Table 5 summarizes the main activities. These activities should improve abilities in critical literature evaluation, study objectives, methodology, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and oral presentation [ 30 ]. Incorporating scientific research in medical education at an early stage improves both cognitive and practical abilities, develops intellectual skills, encourages evidence-based learning, promotes the production of publications, stimulates future research, and facilitates career progression [ 33 ]. Although there are different opinions about compulsory research in the faculty. According to Abu-Ziad et al., this could lead to bad research practices that harm universities and research organizations.
The findings of the investigation indicated that most students commenced their research activities at a later stage, predominantly during their fifth and sixth years of study. This research commencement coincides with the most common timeframe for starting graduate research. Furthermore, the proportion of students who participated in more complex research activities varied from 12 to 18%. However, their research roles have been vast. These include a data review of scientific literature, the formulation of research ideas and hypotheses, the development of research methodology and protocol, the creation of data collection tools, data gathering in various environments, including hospitals, communities, and organizations, and data statistical analysis. The percentage of students engaged in activities such as conducting laboratory experiments, writing medical articles, and developing abstracts and presentations for scientific conferences was considerably lower. Romanian students were more involved in data collection, while international students focused more on literature reviews. The language barrier could be the key to these results, as international students could perform review-type research more easily than gathering data from local patients, while Romanian students were expected to collect information more easily due to their access to patient data and their improved interactions with local patients.
Romanian students and international students have significantly different participation rates in medical conferences. Events like conferences, workshops, seminars, and symposiums offer unique learning opportunities. These events encourage medical staff to remain current on research, discuss best practices, and learn new skills, developing safety and quality [ 42 ]. Romanian students have a higher percentage of presentations, with around 15% presenting their work, while international students have around 10%. Posters were more common among Romanian students, while oral presentations were more common among international students. Our findings align with a previous study conducted in the United Kingdom, which showed that 17% of students had submitted an article for scientific meetings, which refers to their participation in poster and podium presentations [ 26 ].
Between 20% and 25% of students from the studied groups have contributed to writing medical publications at least once, while between 10% and 15% of participants published papers as authors. The Romanian section had a higher percentage of students who co-authored papers. Students from both sections contributed reviews, original articles, and clinical case presentations. Similarly, a previous investigation conducted among students from Dutch universities showed that 12% of the participants had published one or more papers either prior to or during their year of graduation [ 43 ]. In their study, Barbosa et al. showed that investigations conducted at the medical-degree level are an unexplored resource of scientific knowledge. Active participation in scientific research holds significant value in terms of enhancing one’s personal knowledge. However, it is equally crucial to share this knowledge to advance the medical field and, subsequently, improve healthcare outcomes [ 8 ]. More than one-quarter of students expressed interest in publishing their graduation research data, with Romanian students showing more interest. This may be due to the fact that most international graduates do not continue their training in Romania after graduation, making it difficult to work with the research team to disseminate graduation study results. Currently, there are international students with at least one paper at the peer review stage. Also, under 10% of students have articles approved or published already. Therefore, the publication rate for research graduation theses was lower than that of other European studies, with rates of 10.4% in Portugal, 17% in France, and 23.8% in Finland [ 8 ]. To contrast, our study exposed data collected around graduation, while these studies revealed data collected years after graduation [ 8 ].
Previous investigations showed that medical students need expertise in writing papers and abstracts. Teaching these abilities would be valuable, and medical schools should provide information and knowledge about writing scientific articles and abstracts to help students develop a solid foundation for their postgraduate medical careers [ 26 ]. Our findings demonstrated that almost all the students want to improve their scientific manuscript writing (writing of the scientific article, abstract) and publishing guidelines. The 2022 and 2023 graduates were more interested in learning how to write a scientific article and abstract writing, while the Romanian students were more interested in improving their scientific manuscript writing and publishing guidelines.
According to Waaijer et al., positive experiences can drive student motivation in a research career. Thus, the present investigation showed that over half of participants express a desire to continue conducting research after graduation, and they are probably likely to have had favorable experiences related to research throughout their medical school studies [ 43 ]. Moreover, a systematic review focused on career choice demonstrated that obtaining a medical degree or participating in a fellowship program is linked to a professional path in the field of research medicine. Also, the completion of research projects and subsequent dissemination of findings within the context of medical school and residency have a strong connection to a career path in the field of research medicine [ 44 ].
There are several limitations associated with this study. The first limitation could be the fact that the study provides valuable insights into research participation among Romanian and international medical graduates; the findings could be comparable only with those of other medical schools under the Bologna process that adopt similar curricular and extracurricular research activities. Furthermore, the research sample includes exclusively medical graduates from one Romanian medical institution, so the findings could restrict the representation of many points of view and experiences in the larger community of medical graduates. Moreover, participants who are more interested in research may self-select, which could influence the findings. Another possible limitation of our study is the low response rate observed. We also observed declining participation rates over successive years. Survey fatigue, demographic changes, methodologies, perceived relevance, privacy issues, benefits, and societal trends all could help to explain declining survey participation rates. Also, uncontrollable factors such as socioeconomic status, prior research experience, or personal motivations can complicate the relationship between identified variables and barriers to research participation, thereby complicating the ability to establish causal relationships. Moreover, the cross-sectional design of the study may restrict its ability to capture changes in research participation. It is very difficult to observe patterns and experiences over time or across different stages of medical education. However, a strong point of this study can be considered a continuation of the first investigation, as it aims to examine the factors that influence the engagement of undergraduate medical students in research in their third and fifth years of study, who graduated in 2021 and were part of the study’s sample.
The findings of this study offer important perspectives into the involvement of medical undergraduates in research during medical school, as well as the factors and barriers that interfere with research participation. The results demonstrate that intrinsic motivation is the primary factor driving student engagement in research, while institutional factors, such as educational, financial, and community influences, also have a substantial impact on research involvement. Lack of interest and time restrictions are the two main barriers. Furthermore, observed were financial issues, difficulties finding a research coordinator or team, and securing a research project. Also, this study revealed the existence of research culture differences between Romanian and international students and underlined the dynamic character of medical education. This work could be used as a foundation for future research to explore methods for removing these obstacles and fostering factors that may impact research engagement. These results could be adapted by teaching staff about practical medical education to offer effective strategies for encouraging undergraduate research field involvement and promoting cross-cultural learning. Also, universities and policymakers could utilize these findings to concentrate their initiatives on reducing the main barriers to achieving high-quality research. Overall, this study not only advances academic understanding but also offers tangible benefits to all parties involved, fostering a collaborative approach to encourage research participation among medical undergraduates.
The datasets utilized and analyzed in the present study are accesible upon resonable request from the corresponding author.
Sarwar M, Farhan Sarwar M. Understanding the significance of medical education for health care of community around the globe. Int J Innov Res Educ Sci. 1(2):2349–5219.
Buja LM. Medical education today: all that glitters is not gold. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1535-9 .
Article Google Scholar
Milella F, Minelli EA, Strozzi F, Croce D. Change and Innovation in Healthcare: findings from literature. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;13:395–408. https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S301169 .
Shelton PG, Corral I, Kyle B. Advancements in undergraduate medical education: meeting the challenges of an evolving world of education, healthcare, and technology. Psychiatr Q. 2017;88(2):225–34.
Kampmeijer R, Pavlova M, Tambor M, Golinowska S, Groot W. The use of e-health and m-health tools in health promotion and primary prevention among older adults: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(Suppl 5):290. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1522-3 .
Edgman-Levitan S, Schoenbaum SC. Patient-centered care: achieving higher quality by designing care through the patient’s eyes. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2021;10(1):21.
Sklar DP. Looking ahead: futures planning for Medical Education. Acad Med. 2019;94(10):1401–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002861 .
Barbosa JM, Magalhães SI, Ferreira MA. Call to publish in an Undergraduate Medical Course: dissemination of the final-year Research Project. Teach Learn Med. 2016 Oct-Dec;28(4):432–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2016.1182916 .
Stone C, Dogbey GY, Klenzak S, Van Fossen K, Tan B, Brannan GD. Contemporary global perspectives of medical students on research during undergraduate medical education: a systematic literature review. Med Educ Online. 2018;23(1):1537430. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2018.1537430 .
Carberry C, McCombe G, Tobin H, Stokes D, Last J, Bury G, Cullen W. Curriculum initiatives to enhance research skills acquisition by medical students: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):312. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02754-0 .
Bovijn J, Kajee N, Esterhuizen TM, Van Schalkwyk SC. Research involvement among undergraduate health sciences students: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):186. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1025-x .
Adebisi YA. Undergraduate students’ involvement in research: values, benefits, barriers and recommendations. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;81:104384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104384 .
Funston G, Piper RJ, Connell C, Foden P, Young AM, O’Neill P. Medical student perceptions of research and research-orientated careers: an international questionnaire study. Med Teach. 2016;38(10):1041–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1150981 .
Dawadi P, Khadka S. Research and Medical students: some notable contributions made in history. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2021;59(233):94–7. https://doi.org/10.31729/jnma.5078 .
Chang Y, Ramnanan CJ. A review of literature on medical students and scholarly research: experiences, attitudes, and outcomes. Acad Med. 2015;90(8):1162–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000702 .
Yin C, Moszcyznski AJ, Blom JN, et al. Advancing the understanding of research during medical education through collaborative learning: the collaboration of practitioners and researchers Seminar Series. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:457. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1890-6 .
Laskowitz DT, Drucker RP, Parsonnet J, Cross PC, Gesundheit N. Engaging students in dedicated research and scholarship during medical school: the long-term experiences at Duke and Stanford. Acad Med. 2010;85(3):419–28. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccc77a .
Marquand J, Scott P. The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999, democrats, authoritarians and the Bologna process. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited; 2018. pp. 183–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78743-439-420181009 .
Book Google Scholar
Huang Q, Yue Z, Lin J, Zhang Y, Yuan S, Zhuang Q, et al. The effect and influence of undergraduate research on medical undergraduates in China. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2018;47(1):41–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21194 .
Research Requirement for Medical Students [Internet]. AAMC. [cited 2024 March 6]. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/curriculum-reports/data/research-requirement-medical-students .
Ommering BWC, Van Blankenstein FM, van Diepen M, Gruis NA, Kool A, Dekker FW. The importance of motivation in selecting undergraduate medical students for extracurricular research programmes. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(11):e0260193. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260193 .
Haroon MA, Noorali AA, Khan AS, Hussain MH, Advani R, Sami A, et al. Implementation evaluation of a medical student-led intervention to enhance students’ engagement with research: findings and lessons learned. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(8):e0290867–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290867 .
Ommering BWC, van Blankenstein FM, Waaijer CJF, Dekker FW. Future physician-scientists: could we catch them young? Factors influencing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for research among first-year medical students. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7(4):248–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0440-y .
Abu-Zaid A, Alkattan K. Integration of scientific research training into undergraduate medical education: a reminder call. Med Educ Online. 2013;18:22832. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v18i0.22832 .
Cuschieri A, Cuschieri S. Analysing the impact of an Elective Research experience on medical students’ research perceptions. Med Sci Educ. 2023;33(1):157–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01727-w . PMID: 36688012; PMCID: PMC9845813.
Griffin MF, Hindocha S. Publication practices of medical students at British medical schools: experience, attitudes and barriers to publish. Med Teach. 2011;33(1):e1–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.530320 .
Morrison N, Machado M, Blackburn C. Bridging the gap: understanding the barriers and facilitators to performance for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic medical students in the United Kingdom. Med Educ. 2024;58(4):443–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15246 . Epub 2023 Oct 8. PMID: 37807122.
Claridge H, Stone K, Ussher M. The ethnicity attainment gap among medical and biomedical science students: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):325. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1426-5 . PMID: 30594175; PMCID: PMC6310969.
Morrison N, Zaman T, Webster G, Sorinola O, Blackburn C. Where are you really from?‘: a qualitative study of racial microaggressions and the impact on medical students in the UK. BMJ Open. 2023;13(5):e069009. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069009 . PMID: 37147091; PMCID: PMC10163503.
Pop AI, Lotrean LM, Buzoianu AD, Suciu SM, Florea M. Attitudes and practices regarding Research among Romanian Medical Undergraduate Students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1872. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031872 .
Study formations. [Internet]. old.umfcluj.ro. [cited 2024 March 10]. https://umfcluj.ro/en/students/curriculum/study-formations/ .
Pate A, Mills AR, Fleming JW, Phan HK, Street M, Pitcock JJ. Residency application content and considerations based on residency director review of a fictitious CV: what really matters? Am J Health-System Pharm. 2023;80(17):1147–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxad068 .
Abu-Zaid A. Research skills: the neglected competency in tomorrow’s 21st-century doctors. Perspect Med Educ. 2014;3(1):63–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-013-0087-7 .
Eley DS, Jensen C, Thomas R, Benham H. What will it take? Pathways, time and funding: Australian medical students’ perspective on clinician-scientist training. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):242. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1081-2 . PMID: 29216896; PMCID: PMC5721615.
. Framework [Internet]. old.umfcluj.ro. [cited 2024 March 10]. http://old.umfcluj.ro/en/cercetare-uk/cadru-uk .
Petrella JK, Jung AP. Undergraduate research: importance, benefits, and challenges. Int J Exerc Sci. 2008;1(3):91–5.
Trethewey SP. Improving medical student engagement with extra-curricular research. Med Teach. 2019;41(7):849. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1548761 .
Siemens DR, Punnen S, Wong J, Kanji N. A survey on the attitudes towards research in medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-4 . PMID: 20096112; PMCID: PMC2823602.
Kumar J, Memon A, Kumar A, Kumari R, Kumar B, Fareed S. Barriers experienced by medical students in Conducting Research at Undergraduate Level. Cureus. 2019;11(4):e4452. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.4452 . PMID: 31205838; PMCID: PMC6561510.
Hegde A, Venkataramana G, Kulkarni SB, Bhaskar NN, Jacob J, Gangadharappa SK. Attitudes, experiences, and barriers to research and publishing among dental postgraduate students of Bengaluru City: a cross-sectional study. J Ind Assoc Public Health Dent. 2017;15:157–61.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. Stony Brook. NY: State University of New York; 1998.
Google Scholar
Mishra S. Do medical conferences have a role to play? Sharpen the saw. Indian Heart J. 2016;68(2):111–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ihj.2016.03.011 .
Waaijer CJF, Ommering BWC, van der Wurff LJ, van Leeuwen TN, Dekker FW, NVMO Special Interest Group on Scientific Education. Scientific activity by medical students: the relationship between academic publishing during medical school and publication careers after graduation. Perspect Med Educ. 2019;8(4):223–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0524-3 .
Straus SE, Straus C, Tzanetos K, International Campaign to Revitalise Academic Medicine. Career choice in academic medicine: systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(12):1222–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00599.x .
Download references
We would like to extend our sincere thanks to all the students who participated in the survey.
This research was funded through a research project by the Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Internal grant—Doctoral Research Project with registration number: 1032/49/13 January 2021.
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Community Medicine, Research Center in Preventive Medicine, Health Promotion and Sustainable Development, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, 400012, Romania
Andreea Iulia Pop
Department of Community Medicine, Research Center in Preventive Medicine, Health Promotion and Sustainable, Development Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, 400012, Romania
Lucia Maria Lotrean
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
A.I.P. conducted data collection, performed data analysis and interpretation, and wrote the article. L.M.L. developed the methodology, provided supervision, offered valuable insights regarding data analysis and interpretation, and contributed to the article’s writing. The authors have read and approved the submitted version of the manuscript.
Correspondence to Andreea Iulia Pop .
Ethics approval and consent to participate.
The study was approved by the Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy Ethics Committee (Approval No. 27/03.11.2021).
The need for written informed consent was waived by the Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy Ethics Committee due to the nature of the survey, which did not collect any personally identifiable data.
All students were informed that participating in the study is voluntary and that they can choose not to participate by not completing the anonymous survey. The students who completed the survey expressed their agreement with their involvement in the study.
Not applicable.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Pop, A.I., Lotrean, L.M. Comparative analysis of factors and barriers intervening in research participation among romanian and international medical graduates from one romanian medical faculty across three generations. BMC Med Educ 24 , 1028 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05939-5
Download citation
Received : 07 April 2024
Accepted : 21 August 2024
Published : 19 September 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05939-5
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
ISSN: 1472-6920
Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts
This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.
Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.
Note: This page reflects APA 6, which is now out of date. It will remain online until 2021, but will not be updated. There is currently no equivalent 7th edition page, but we're working on one. Thank you for your patience. Here is a link to our APA 7 "General Format" page .
There are two common types of papers written in fields using APA Style: the literature review and the experimental report (also known as a "research report"). Each has unique requirements concerning the sections that must be included in the paper.
A literature review is a critical summary of what the scientific literature says about your specific topic or question. Often student research in APA fields falls into this category. Your professor might ask you to write this kind of paper to demonstrate your familiarity with work in the field pertinent to the research you hope to conduct.
While the APA Publication Manual does not require a specific order for a literature review, a good literature review typically contains the following components:
Some instructors may also want you to write an abstract for a literature review, so be sure to check with them when given an assignment. Also, the length of a literature review and the required number of sources will vary based on course and instructor preferences.
NOTE: A literature review and an annotated bibliography are not synonymous. While both types of writing involve examining sources, the literature review seeks to synthesize the information and draw connections between sources. If you are asked to write an annotated bibliography, you should consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association for the APA Format for Annotated Bibliographies.
In many of the social sciences, you will be asked to design and conduct your own experimental research. If so, you will need to write up your paper using a structure that is more complex than that used for just a literature review. We have a complete resource devoted to writing an experimental report in the field of psychology here .
This structure follows the scientific method, but it also makes your paper easier to follow by providing those familiar cues that help your reader efficiently scan your information for:
Thus an experimental report typically includes the following sections.
Make sure to check the guidelines for your assignment or any guidelines that have been given to you by an editor of a journal before you submit a manuscript containing the sections listed above.
As with the literature review, the length of this report may vary by course or by journal, but most often it will be determined by the scope of the research conducted.
If you are writing a paper that fits neither of these categories, follow the guidelines about General Format , consult your instructor, or look up advice in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association .
When submitting a manuscript to a journal, make sure you follow the guidelines described in the submission policies of that publication, and include as many sections as you think are applicable to presenting your material. Remember to keep your audience in mind as you are making this decision. If certain information is particularly pertinent for conveying your research, then ensure that there is a section of your paper that adequately addresses that information.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Formatting a Chicago paper. The main guidelines for writing a paper in Chicago style (also known as Turabian style) are: Use a standard font like 12 pt Times New Roman. Use 1 inch margins or larger. Apply double line spacing. Indent every new paragraph ½ inch. Place page numbers in the top right or bottom center.
Research paper format is an essential aspect of academic writing that plays a crucial role in the communication of research findings.The format of a research paper depends on various factors such as the discipline, style guide, and purpose of the research. It includes guidelines for the structure, citation style, referencing, and other elements of the paper that contribute to its overall ...
Set the top, bottom, and side margins of your paper at 1 inch. Use double-spaced text throughout your paper. Use a standard font, such as Times New Roman or Arial, in a legible size (10- to 12-point). Use continuous pagination throughout the paper, including the title page and the references section.
Begin the paper with a title page, which is not required for MLA. Use double-line spacing. Indent new paragraphs 1/2 inch. Use a running head for each page in the upper right-hand corner, which consists of the paper's title in capital letters followed by the page number.
An MLA in-text citation includes the author's last name and a page number—no year. When there are two authors, APA Style separates their names with an ampersand (&), while MLA uses "and.". For three or more authors, both styles list the first author followed by " et al. ". APA.
Research Paper Format Styles. Research paper format means the reference style used in an academic paper or publication. The most common formats include: APA (American Psychological Association), MLA (Modern Language Association), Chicago, AMA (American Medical Association), ASA, and Turabian.
The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation is the main style guide for legal citations in the US. It's widely used in law, and also when legal materials need to be cited in other disciplines. Bluebook footnote citation. 1 David E. Pozen, Freedom of Information Beyond the Freedom of Information Act, 165, U. P🇦 . L.
Here are some tips on how to format a paper in APA style: Double-space all your text. Maintain one-inch margins on all sides of the paper. Use a font style that is easy to read (typically 12-point Times New Roman). Include an APA header on all pages of your paper. Make sure each new paragraph is indented by 0.5 inches.
APA Style is primarily used in the behavioral sciences, which are subjects related to people, such as psychology, education, and nursing. It is also used by students in business, engineering, communications, and other classes. Students use it to write academic essays and research papers in high school and college, and professionals use it to ...
The citation style sometimes depends on the academic discipline involved. For example: APA (American Psychological Association) is used by Education, Psychology, and Sciences. MLA (Modern Language Association) style is used by the Humanities. Chicago/Turabian style is generally used by Business, History, and the Fine Arts.
Research paper formatting. 11- or 12-point easily readable font, such as Times New Roman, Calibri, or Arial. Double line spacing. 1-inch margins. ½-inch paragraph indents and no extra space between paragraphs. A single space after periods. Headings. In-text citations. Hanging indents in the references.
The most common styles are MLA (Modern Language Association) or APA (American Psychological Association). MLA is often used for English papers and in the Humanities. APA is often used in Social Sciences and Health Careers. These styles are very different, so know which one you are supposed to use. Remember to ask a librarian if you need help.
APA (American Psychological Association) style is most commonly used to cite sources within the social sciences. This resource, revised according to the 6th edition, second printing of the APA manual, offers examples for the general format of APA research papers, in-text citations, endnotes/footnotes, and the reference page.
Paper Format. Consistency in the order, structure, and format of a paper allows readers to focus on a paper's content rather than its presentation. To format a paper in APA Style, writers can typically use the default settings and automatic formatting tools of their word-processing program or make only minor adjustments.
A research paper is a piece of academic writing that provides analysis, interpretation, and argument based on in-depth independent research. ... The references section provides a list of all the sources cited in the paper, following a specific citation style such as APA, MLA or Chicago. ... Here are some common limitations of research papers:
Proper punctuation and good proofreading skills can significantly improve academic writing [see sub-tab for proofreading you paper]. Refer to these three basic resources to help your grammar and writing skills: A good writing reference book, such as, Strunk and White's book, The Elements of Style or the St. Martin's Handbook;
Throughout your paper, you need to apply the following APA format guidelines: Set page margins to 1 inch on all sides. Double-space all text, including headings. Indent the first line of every paragraph 0.5 inches. Use an accessible font (e.g., Times New Roman 12pt., Arial 11pt., or Georgia 11pt.). Include a page number on every page.
First, you must include a parenthetical citation in the text of your paper that indicates the source of a particular quotation, paraphrased statement or idea, or fact; second, you must include a list of references at the end of your paper that enables readers to locate the sources you have used. You can read more about MLA style here and APA ...
the format & structure of your paper; how you cite other authors within the body of your paper; how you compile a references page at the end of your paper; MLA Style. MLA Style, currently in its 8th edition, is a citation protocol established by the Modern Language Association. This style was developed for students to support the writing process.
Whether you're a first-time researcher or seeking to refine your skills, this guide helps you navigate the many decisions of structuring and formatting your qualitative paper. We'll dive into citation styles, structural formats, and other formatting details, providing an overview and tips for creating effective and efficient qualitative ...
Articles & Research Databases Literature on your research topic and direct access to articles online, when available at UW.; E-Journals Alphabetical list of electronic journal titles held at UW.; Encyclopedias & Dictionaries Resources for looking up quick facts and background information.; E-Newspapers, Media, Maps & More Recommendations for finding news, audio/video, images, government ...
Formatting an essay may not be as interesting as choosing a topic to write about or carefully crafting elegant sentences, but it's an extremely important part of creating a high-quality paper. In this article, we'll explain essay formatting rules for three of the most popular essay styles: MLA, APA, and Chicago.
Persuasive writing is a style of writing that focuses on convincing the reader to agree with a specific opinion or point of view or take a particular action. This form of writing is common in advertising, essays, opinion pieces, and speeches. It enables the writer to take a clear stand on a given topic.
This study focuses on the factors that encouraged engagement in research activities, as well as the barriers that restricted their involvement, until the final year of study at Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy Cluj-Napoca, Faculty of Medicine. The main objectives of this study are to investigate potential disparities in research culture and student engagement in various ...
APA (American Psychological Association) style is most commonly used to cite sources within the social sciences. This resource, revised according to the 6th edition, second printing of the APA manual, offers examples for the general format of APA research papers, in-text citations, endnotes/footnotes, and the reference page. For more information, please consult the Publication Manual of the ...