Navigating an Infodemic: Methods for Teaching Critical Reading in the Health Sciences
2023
- 86Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage86
- Downloads71
- Abstract Views15
Book Chapter Description
In difficult times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s even more important that students recognize and question their assumptions regarding how knowledge is recognized as legitimate in their disciplines. “When there is no time for proper peer review, each of us must be our own reviewer.” How can we teach students to recognize flawed methods and data, even when the research may be presented in the top journals as the current best evidence? How do we teach future clinicians to look past the name of the journal or the reputation of the author and learn to discern quality evidence? This chapter discusses an example of a lesson plan in the health sciences that utilizes a retracted article related to the recent infodemic; this lesson plan uses the retracted article as a tool to help students improve their critical reading skills.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know