Reflections on work experience with a student-led journal

 

In this post, recent graduates Shaffi Batchelor and Mustafa Abdimalik tell us what it’s really like to work on the editorial team of the British Student Doctor Journal.  Shaffi’s role is Education Section Editor and Mustafa’s is Editorial Assistant.  You can download articles from the journal free of charge at: https://thebsdj.cardiffuniversitypress.org/


 I have always had a love of written language: it’s one of the reasons I spent three years reading English at the University of York prior to studying medicine. After graduating and feeling that I had left the arts behind during the course of studying medicine, the opportunity to become involved with the British Student Doctor Journal felt like a breath of fresh air.

I have been genuinely humbled by the scope and quality of the submissions that I have been called to review as Education Section Editor. For all that we frequently dismiss our own actions as being those of “mere” medical students, the depth, nuance and innovation that I have been privileged enough to see have all reassured me that my peers are the worthy successors to a long tradition of medical development and clinical research, one that has never before been so forward-thinking or exciting.
On a personal note, it has been enlightening to gain first-hand insight into the process of peer review, both as reviewer and editor. I find that I now have a greater appreciation for the many individuals involved in creating spaces where research and discourse can flourish, with our own BSDJ as just one example. 

I have definitely learned a great deal over the past two years as Section Editor, and now happily consider myself a champion of both the peer review process and student-led endeavours; with both, we are collectively working towards something far grander than ourselves.

Shafqat Batchelor


I first heard about the journal almost a year and a half ago. I was fascinated by the idea of a journal made and dedicated by students. To be honest, I knew very little about how to write a piece well (whether research article or reflection) and what happens after you submit it. All that changed when I expressed interest in working for the BSDJ.

Initially and for six months, I started as a peer reviewer. I still have and enjoy that role as it has provided me with insight into the process from submission to publication. Subsequently, I applied to work for the journal as peer review manager. The role involves managing peer review applications, updating the peer review database and helping section editors to identify peer reviewers during busy periods. 

I try to answer emails as promptly as possible and stay in contact with section editors to ensure articles are reviewed in a timely manner. With other work and life commitments, it is crucial to stay organised and maintain good communication on a regular basis with section editors. I have found the role both exciting and challenging at times. The work demands of the journal are not huge or difficult, but require attention and dedication.

I am grateful for the experience I have had with the journal. I believe it has improved many aspects of my academic development that are not often explored during clinical practice. I am also grateful to the amazing team we have. To sum it up, it is an experience that has been both educational and sociable.  

Mustafa Abdimalik

 

 

 

Advertisements

Feature: Journal of Late Antique Religion and Culture volume 11 – Javier Martínez & Patricia González

The latest article from the Journal of Late Antique Religion and Culture (JLARC), entitled “Knowledge and specialised trades in the late antique West: medicine vs engineering”, was published on 8th January. Its authors Javier Martínez and Patricia González compare and contrast the trades of medicine and engineering in the Roman world, and provide a theory as to why the Romans’ medical skills were mostly passed on to later generations while their engineering skills were soon lost.

Read the whole article at: https://jlarc.cardiffuniversitypress.org/articles/abstract/10.18573/j.2017.10451/

The high degree of technical and scientific development accomplished in the Roman world is quite staggering. The construction of concrete vaults still standing today, and unsurpassed until the Modern period, is proof of their engineering skills. Similarly, Roman medics were capable of practising eye surgery and embryotomies on patients who survived such interventions. However, with the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West during the long fifth century and the emergence of Christianity, popular imagination sees these two sciences collapsing into the Dark Ages. While this is not absolutely true, it is not completely false either. In the Iberian and Gaulish examples we analyse in this paper, we want to put forward how engineering all but disappeared, while Roman medicine continued and was preserved through the Middle Ages and into modern times.
Complex techniques and specialised instruments, including vaulting and levelling, seem to have been lost in sixth- and seventh-century constructions. All new buildings are much simpler in design and techniques, even if built to large scale, because the problem was not the lack of skilled builders but the lack of trained engineers and architects who could do the necessary calculations. The specific example of aqueducts and their abandonment, and the way new churches were built, serve to illustrate this point. In medicine, however, there is a clear continuity of old Roman practices during late antiquity, partly promoted and protected by the Church. Only a few specific elements and tools seem to have been lost, while most generic and specialised sets of knowledge continued.
We propose that some of the reasons behind these diverting paths in the two sciences reside in the way these sets of specialised knowledge had been transmitted in the Roman world, underlining the weakness of Roman overspecialisation. Engineering was taught either through the army or through private apprenticeship systems, was limited almost entirely to men, and flourished during the periods of economic bonanza when large projects were carried out. The Roman elites would have a certain knowledge of construction and architecture basics as part of their cursus honorum, but this was never proper training – the engineer was not a socially privileged position. In this way, once the Empire collapsed, the army disbanded, and large building projects came to an end until the late sixth century. By then all chains of training in the West seem to have been terminally disrupted (as opposed to what happened in the Roman East). Medicine, on the other hand, was a very developed science, but it was not concentrated in a few hands. Army medics and surgeons existed, but they were not the only ones: municipal medics, trained slaves, herbalists, midwives, priests, even perfume makers, all shared fractions of the vast corpus of Roman medical science. It was accessible to men and women, and it was kept in high social esteem as well, so the transmission of medical knowledge was not as limited as engineering and not tied to the fate of the Empire.

JLARC