Protected research time and medical student research output: a longitudinal cohort study

Medical student research programs support evidence-based practice, clinician-researcher development, and scholarly output. Internationally, 10–30% of students in structured programs achieve peer-reviewed publication, but longitudinal data across medical schools remain limited. This study characterised the volume, journal-level bibliometric profile, scope, and predictors of research outputs from a mandatory medical student research program across nine cohorts (2014–2024) and compared a longitudinal project model with unprotected research time with a protected-block model of 14 weeks of dedicated research time. A retrospective publication search to January 2026 used student–supervisor surname dyads in Google Scholar, with outputs included if peer-reviewed and related to the student’s project. Publication lag, author position, and journal-level bibliometrics were analysed for journal articles, and research scope was classified using weighted Fields of Research (FoR) codes. Binary logistic regression examined factors independently associated with research output, comparing longitudinal and protected-block project models. Among 2,451 students, 487 (20%) produced at least one research output, generating 597 unique outputs: 536 journal articles (90%), 53 conference presentations (9%), and eight other outputs. Of indexed journal articles, 93% appeared in Q1 or Q2 journals (median Journal Impact Factor 3.6, IQR 2.7–4.9). Median publication lag was 1.0 year (IQR 1.0–2.0) and decreased across cohorts (Kruskal–Wallis H = 82.0, p <.001). Students occupied first-author position in 48% of student–output pairs. Outputs spanned 13 FoR divisions. In the primary regression (cohorts 1–8), the protected-block model was independently associated with research output (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.44–2.30); no student demographic or background characteristic was independently associated with output. The association persisted when Cohort 9 was included (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.18–1.83) and when the outcome was restricted to peer-reviewed journal publication (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.29–2.09). This mandatory research program produced output rates consistent with international benchmarks across diverse topic areas. The protected-block model was associated with greater research output, although program structure was inseparable from cohort and calendar period. These findings support structured and protected opportunities for research within medical curricula.