Peer Review Policy:
Journal of Research in Medical Education adopts a blind expert peer review process. Authors must provide an email address as all communication will be by email. Two files must be furnished: the covering letter and the manuscript in MS Word. The covering letter should be uploaded as a file not for review. All articles submitted to the Journal must comply with these instructions. Failure to do so will result in return of the manuscript and possible delay in publication. All submissions to Journal of Research in Medical Education are assessed by an Editor, who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Manuscripts not submitted elsewhere for publication will only be considered. Each unsolicited manuscript is sent to 2-3 reviewers, who evaluate it accordingly with a “single-blind peer review” procedure which may span for period of 3-4 weeks.
We do not release reviewers' identities to authors or to other reviewers, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified. Unless they feel strongly, however, we prefer that reviewers should rein anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.
Writing the Review:
The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision but the review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication elsewhere. Referees should not feel obliged to provide detailed, constructive advice regarding minor criticisms of the manuscript if it does not meet the criteria for the journal.
Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but it is helpful if the main points are stated in the comments for transmission to the authors. The ideal review should answer the following questions:
- Who will be interested in reading the paper, and why?
- What are the main claims of the paper and how significant are they?
- How does the paper stand out from others in its field?
- Are the claims novel? If not, which published papers compromise novelty?
- Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed to strengthen the paper?
- Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
- If the manuscript is unacceptable, is the study sufficiently promising to encourage the authors to resubmit?
- Is the manuscript clearly written?
- Would readers outside the discipline benefit from a schematic of the main result to accompany publication?
- Should the authors be asked to provide supplementary methods or data to accompany the paper online? (Such data might include source code for modeling studies, detailed experimental protocols or mathematical derivations.)
- Have the authors done themselves justice without praising their claims extremely?
- Have they been fair in their approach to previous literature?
- Have they provided sufficient methodological detail that the experiments could be reproduced?
- Is the statistical analysis of the data sound, and does it conform to the journal's guidelines?
- Are there any special ethical concerns arising from the use of human or other animal subjects?
Reviewing Peer Review:
After review process, the Editor-in-Chief chooses between the following decisions:
· Minor Revision
· Major Revision
If the decision is Minor Revision or Major Revision, authors have 30 days to resubmit the revised manuscript. Authors may contact to journal staff if they require an extension.
Submission of Revised Manuscripts:
While submitting a revised manuscript, contributors are requested to include a point to point response to reviewer's comments at the beginning of the revised manuscript text file itself or/and as comments next to the text. In addition, if any changes are made to the manuscript, please mark the changes as underlined or highlighted text in the article.