{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017459870459025625, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016896648831315122, 'mean_word_length': 5.517431192660551, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Improving the feasibility of academic writing by pediatric residents

Teruya et al published a report that is of value to all pediatric attendings in Japan. Their findings highlighted the varying perspectives of pediatric directors regarding clinical research education. We propose that improving the submission of academic papers by residents through a well‐structured Resident Research Program (RRP) would enhance the pediatric directors’ perception of research during residency. Generally, residents who have performed clinical research have enhanced patient care abilities and have used their experience to guide decisions on patient treatment. Moreover, clinical research prepares the residents to become lifelong learners and develop their appreciation for research advancement. Therefore, it is crucial that program directors support residents in exploring their research interests. Although clinical research appears to be important for residents and their patients, pediatric directors have a different perspectives with regard to facilitating clinical research. While it is unclear whether their perspectives are related to the ability of residents to submit academic papers, predicting the feasibility of resident writing could be an important factor. Herein, we suggest two additional variables that may still be relevant to this study. The first variable is the difference in labor costs and assigned time for research education. Teruya et al demonstrated that there was a difference in passion for research between academics and non‐academics, whereas there was no difference in the presence of PhD degree. However, in fact, some community hospitals emphasize clinical research, some academic hospitals are unable to focus on research education due to the shortage of staff. O’Brien et al drew attention to the human cost of mandating clinical research during residency. They also insisted that a major barrier to conducting research during residency is the lack of time. Therefore, we deem labor costs and assigned time for research education should be considered as confounding factors. The second variable is regional differences. There may be differences in the focus on research by program directors in big cities (Tokyo, Yokohama, and Osaka) compared with those in smaller cities. According to the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, one resident started pediatric residency in 2018 from the Iwate, Yamagata, Toyama, and Yamanashi prefectures each, while there was none from Saga and Tokushima. Furthermore, some local hospitals may not accept pediatric residents every year. For this reason, regional differences could be a crucial variable in program director emphasis on research. The study by Teruya et al would be improved by considering these variables. Moreover, well‐structured RRPs can be essential for improving the feasibility of resident paper submissions, which may enhance the program directors’ perception of clinical research. Tamim et al recently published the only article describing a structured research program targeting residents. Their RRP is a mandatory program that provides residents with the opportunity to conduct research with sufficient cooperation of the hospital staff. Through this program, nearly 90% of residents had either published or were in the process of publishing their projects. We hypothesize that an understanding of RRP among hospital staff is necessary for improving the feasibility of paper submissions by residents and empowering the program directors to the program directors.