APP Lunch & Learn Evaluation | February 2026 | Medical College of Wisconsin

Session Name: Take a Deep Dive into Scientific Publication

Time: February 18, 2026

We appreciate your time and effort in participating in this CME Sessional Evaluation. This evaluation is a pipeline to bring your voice to the leadership, instructors, and CME team. We value your voice and try our best to improve the quality of future activities.

First Name *

Last Name *

Email *

Please fill in your Ethos Login Email

In what aspect(s) do you feel satisfied with this session? (Check all that apply)

The session met my learning needs.

The content was relevant to my current practices.

The conversation was interprofessional.

The conversation was constructive.

None

Please check here and explain your choice:____________

1 Please check here and explain your choice:____________

This session enhanced my professional competence or ability in the following ways: (Check all that apply)

The ability to provide compassionate, appropriate, and effective Patient Care.

Medical Knowledge.

Interpersonal and Communication Skills with patients, their families, and health professionals.

Commitment to carrying out Professional responsibilities and an adherence to ethical principles.

The ability to investigate and evaluate patient care, to appraise and assimilate scientific evidence, and to improve patient care based on self-evaluation and life-long learning.

The awareness of and the ability to call effectively on other resources in the larger context and system of health care.

None of above

Please check here and explain your choice:____________

2 Please check here and explain your choice:____________

My practice was/will be changed and improved in the following way(s) as a result of the content presented in the session? (Check all that apply)

Diagnostic approach

Therapeutic approach

Disease prevention or health education

System process improvement

No Change

Please check here and explain your choice:____________

3 Please check here and explain your choice:____________

Did/Will you use this information for specific patient(s)?

yes

If Yes, please check all that apply.

As a result of this information, I managed/will manage this patient differently.

I had several options for this patient, and I used/will use this information to justify a choice.

I thought I knew what to do, and I used/will use this information to be more certain about the management of this patient.

I used/will use this information to better understand a particular issue related to this patient.

I used/will use this information to recommend this patient, or other health professionals to make a change for this patient.

Other...

5 Other...

If No, please check all that apply.

This information does not apply to my patients.

This infromation is too old.

This information is too new.

This strategy is too expensive.

Patient access barriers.

System based barrier (time, staff,ect).

Other...

5 Other...

This patient(s) got/will get the following health benefits as a result of applying this information (Check all that apply)

This information helped/will help to improve this patient's health status, functioning or resilience (i.e., ability to adapt to significant life stressors)

This information helped/will help to prevent a disease or worsening of disease for this patient

This information helped/will help to avoid unnecessary or inappropriate treatment, diagnostic procedures, preventative interventions or a referral, for this patient

Other...

6 Other...

Is there anything which the speaker did exceptionally well? (Select all that apply)

Explained content well

Clear and organized slides/materials

Incorporated interactivity

Engaging style of presentation

Highlighted key points

Develop content appropriate for postgraduate peers and care team

Other...

7 Other...

What patient/health care problem recently challenged you, and you wish you knew more about?

This information was free of commercial bias. If no, please explain.

Yes

No, Why

9 No, Why

Comments and Feedback on the learning experience, content, procedure, and instructors, etc. in this session.

As a result of my participation in this activity, I am better able to... 4 - Strongly Agree 3- Agree 2 - Somewhat Disagree 1- Strongly disagree

	1	2	3	4
When reviewing the scientific literature to support evidence-based practice, APPs will limit their search to legitimate peer-reviewed journals (while keeping abreast of retractions) to avoid giving credence to fake research produced by paper mills. Content Summary: I will describe how paper mills produce manuscripts of fake research and review the current state of the retraction process in scientific literature.	When reviewing the scientific literature to support evidence-based practice, APPs will limit their search to legitimate peer-reviewed journals (while keeping abreast of retractions) to avoid giving credence to fake research produced by paper mills. Content Summary: I will describe how paper mills produce manuscripts of fake research and review the current state of the retraction process in scientific literature. - 1	When reviewing the scientific literature to support evidence-based practice, APPs will limit their search to legitimate peer-reviewed journals (while keeping abreast of retractions) to avoid giving credence to fake research produced by paper mills. Content Summary: I will describe how paper mills produce manuscripts of fake research and review the current state of the retraction process in scientific literature. - 2	When reviewing the scientific literature to support evidence-based practice, APPs will limit their search to legitimate peer-reviewed journals (while keeping abreast of retractions) to avoid giving credence to fake research produced by paper mills. Content Summary: I will describe how paper mills produce manuscripts of fake research and review the current state of the retraction process in scientific literature. - 3	When reviewing the scientific literature to support evidence-based practice, APPs will limit their search to legitimate peer-reviewed journals (while keeping abreast of retractions) to avoid giving credence to fake research produced by paper mills. Content Summary: I will describe how paper mills produce manuscripts of fake research and review the current state of the retraction process in scientific literature. - 4
By using MCW library resources (such as the 28 Warning Signs check list and the Scholarly Communications Librarian) to assess journal legitimacy, APPs will avoid submitting their manuscript to a predatory journal, thus preventing a waste of money and damage to their reputation. Content summary: I will describe how predatory journals function, the financial and reputation risks of publishing in a predatory journal, and ways to identify predatory journals using MCW library resources.	By using MCW library resources (such as the 28 Warning Signs check list and the Scholarly Communications Librarian) to assess journal legitimacy, APPs will avoid submitting their manuscript to a predatory journal, thus preventing a waste of money and damage to their reputation. Content summary: I will describe how predatory journals function, the financial and reputation risks of publishing in a predatory journal, and ways to identify predatory journals using MCW library resources. - 1	By using MCW library resources (such as the 28 Warning Signs check list and the Scholarly Communications Librarian) to assess journal legitimacy, APPs will avoid submitting their manuscript to a predatory journal, thus preventing a waste of money and damage to their reputation. Content summary: I will describe how predatory journals function, the financial and reputation risks of publishing in a predatory journal, and ways to identify predatory journals using MCW library resources. - 2	By using MCW library resources (such as the 28 Warning Signs check list and the Scholarly Communications Librarian) to assess journal legitimacy, APPs will avoid submitting their manuscript to a predatory journal, thus preventing a waste of money and damage to their reputation. Content summary: I will describe how predatory journals function, the financial and reputation risks of publishing in a predatory journal, and ways to identify predatory journals using MCW library resources. - 3	By using MCW library resources (such as the 28 Warning Signs check list and the Scholarly Communications Librarian) to assess journal legitimacy, APPs will avoid submitting their manuscript to a predatory journal, thus preventing a waste of money and damage to their reputation. Content summary: I will describe how predatory journals function, the financial and reputation risks of publishing in a predatory journal, and ways to identify predatory journals using MCW library resources. - 4
APPs will make informed choices for disseminating their research based on their consideration of the pros and cons of Preprint Servers, Open Access Pay-to-Publish, and traditional journals. Content summary: I will explain how Preprint Servers, Open Access Pay-to-Publish, and traditional journals function and point out the pros and cons of submitting manuscripts to each option.	APPs will make informed choices for disseminating their research based on their consideration of the pros and cons of Preprint Servers, Open Access Pay-to-Publish, and traditional journals. Content summary: I will explain how Preprint Servers, Open Access Pay-to-Publish, and traditional journals function and point out the pros and cons of submitting manuscripts to each option. - 1	APPs will make informed choices for disseminating their research based on their consideration of the pros and cons of Preprint Servers, Open Access Pay-to-Publish, and traditional journals. Content summary: I will explain how Preprint Servers, Open Access Pay-to-Publish, and traditional journals function and point out the pros and cons of submitting manuscripts to each option. - 2	APPs will make informed choices for disseminating their research based on their consideration of the pros and cons of Preprint Servers, Open Access Pay-to-Publish, and traditional journals. Content summary: I will explain how Preprint Servers, Open Access Pay-to-Publish, and traditional journals function and point out the pros and cons of submitting manuscripts to each option. - 3	APPs will make informed choices for disseminating their research based on their consideration of the pros and cons of Preprint Servers, Open Access Pay-to-Publish, and traditional journals. Content summary: I will explain how Preprint Servers, Open Access Pay-to-Publish, and traditional journals function and point out the pros and cons of submitting manuscripts to each option. - 4
APPs will avoid “desk rejections” of their submitted manuscripts by considering the editor’s mandate to select manuscripts that serve their journal’s mission and are of interest to their audience. Content summary: I will describe the four potential decisions a journal editor could make about a submitted manuscript and explain how an author can avoid a desk rejection by proactively determining if a manuscript fits the mission and audience of a journal before submitting. This approach can save precious time and effort in the dissemination process.	APPs will avoid “desk rejections” of their submitted manuscripts by considering the editor’s mandate to select manuscripts that serve their journal’s mission and are of interest to their audience. Content summary: I will describe the four potential decisions a journal editor could make about a submitted manuscript and explain how an author can avoid a desk rejection by proactively determining if a manuscript fits the mission and audience of a journal before submitting. This approach can save precious time and effort in the dissemination process. - 1	APPs will avoid “desk rejections” of their submitted manuscripts by considering the editor’s mandate to select manuscripts that serve their journal’s mission and are of interest to their audience. Content summary: I will describe the four potential decisions a journal editor could make about a submitted manuscript and explain how an author can avoid a desk rejection by proactively determining if a manuscript fits the mission and audience of a journal before submitting. This approach can save precious time and effort in the dissemination process. - 2	APPs will avoid “desk rejections” of their submitted manuscripts by considering the editor’s mandate to select manuscripts that serve their journal’s mission and are of interest to their audience. Content summary: I will describe the four potential decisions a journal editor could make about a submitted manuscript and explain how an author can avoid a desk rejection by proactively determining if a manuscript fits the mission and audience of a journal before submitting. This approach can save precious time and effort in the dissemination process. - 3	APPs will avoid “desk rejections” of their submitted manuscripts by considering the editor’s mandate to select manuscripts that serve their journal’s mission and are of interest to their audience. Content summary: I will describe the four potential decisions a journal editor could make about a submitted manuscript and explain how an author can avoid a desk rejection by proactively determining if a manuscript fits the mission and audience of a journal before submitting. This approach can save precious time and effort in the dissemination process. - 4

The following speaker(s) demonstrated experiential knowledge of the topic 4 - Strongly Agree 3- Agree 2 - Somewhat Disagree 1- Strongly Disagree

	1	2	3	4
Patricia Walsh, MS	Patricia Walsh, MS - 1	Patricia Walsh, MS - 2	Patricia Walsh, MS - 3	Patricia Walsh, MS - 4

Choose the option that best fits your evaluation of this activity: 4 - Strongly Agree 3- Agree 2 - Somewhat Disagree 1- Strongly Disagree

	1	2	3	4
The content provided a fair and balanced coverage of the topic	The content provided a fair and balanced coverage of the topic - 1	The content provided a fair and balanced coverage of the topic - 2	The content provided a fair and balanced coverage of the topic - 3	The content provided a fair and balanced coverage of the topic - 4
The content was free of commercial bias	The content was free of commercial bias - 1	The content was free of commercial bias - 2	The content was free of commercial bias - 3	The content was free of commercial bias - 4

Leave this field blank

You are here

APP Lunch & Learn Evaluation | February 2026