The effects of Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) on student knowledge, retention, and overall success are well documented and profound. However, there is less evidence in the literature that one of the most cited benefits for faculty who develop CUREs, which is that faculty can pilot research projects and publish data produced during CUREs in scientific publications, commonly occurs. Through our own efforts in developing an upper-level, interdisciplinary CURE, and a national survey of faculty across institution types, we have found that translating CURE data into publishable science is quite challenging due to the need for follow up data that must be generated by either the faculty or a research student, lack of reproducibility of data generated by novice students, and lack of faculty time to write the manuscripts. Additionally, institution type (private vs. public non-PhD granting; non-PhD granting vs. PhD granting), faculty rank, and CURE level (lower vs. upper-level courses), among other factors, impact the likelihood of publication of CURE data. By understanding the barriers for translating CUREs into publishable, high-quality research, faculty can better structure their CUREs to achieve this end while providing students with an impactful research experience.

Making Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) work for both faculty and students

Where thousands of chemistry professionals meet to share ideas and advance scientific and technical knowledge. Spring 2023 abstracts, posters, and presentations will launch at the end of March.

ACS Spring 2023

The official archive and repository for all ACS Meetings & Expositions abstracts and select posters or presentations.