Reviewer Instructions

Reviewer Expectations

ALL peer reviewers are required to download and view the MedEdPORTAL Publications PDF DocumentReviewer Expectations before completing a reviewer assignment. This document serves as a quick reference for the information below.

A copy of the current PDF Document PDF DocumentMedEdPORTAL Peer Review Form (version 3.0) is available for download and review offline. When completing a reviewer assignment, all reviewers must utilize the online peer review form available through ScholarOne. Reviewers are asked to complete their review assignments within three weeks.

Back to the top

Evaluation Criteria

To evaluate assigned submissions, reviewers must scrutinize the presentation and quality of information contained within the materials submitted for publication (i.e., the Educational Summary Report and associated appendices).

Specifically, reviewers should consider whether all submissions adhere to the six criteria for educational scholarship defined below (Glassick et al., 1997) and are generalizable in nature (i.e., the materials can be implemented at another institution without additional effort, cost, or explanation).

  • CLEAR GOALS:

    The author explicitly states the educational objectives of the work from the perspective of the target audience; the objectives are SMART: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, and Realistic.

  • ADEQUATE PREPARATION:

    The author uses prior work (e.g., existing scholarship and personal experience) to inform and develop the work.

  • APPRIOPRIATE METHODS:

    The author uses a suitable approach to meet the stated educational objectives of the work.

  • SIGNIFICANT RESULTS:

    The author achieves the goals and contributes substantially to others (e.g., learners, colleagues) and to the field in a manner that invites others to use the work.

  • EFFECTIVE PRESENTATION:

    The author effectively organizes and presents the work sufficiently clearly that others can easily emulate/use and build upon it.

  • REFLECTIVE CRITIQUE:

    The author thoughtfully assesses the work and uses review/critique from other sources to refine, enhance, or expand the original concept.

Back to the top

Narrative Feedback

The most important part of the review is the narrative feedback written by each reviewer. Reviewer feedback is used by the editor-in-chief to make final publication decisions and is sent to authors so that they might further enhance and refine their work.

The most helpful MedEdPORTAL reviews are typically three or more paragraphs in length and include the following:

  • A brief resource summary with an indication of how the submission contributes to the field.
  • Identification of strengths and weaknesses with specific recommended revisions.
  • A strong case for the selected editorial recommendation, which the editors can support and build on.

Reviewers have the option to make confidential comments for the editor. The author will not read these comments.

Back to the top

Issuing a Recommendation

All reviewers are required to issue a single, final recommendation of Accept with No Revisions, Revisions Required, or Reject, based on an overall assessment of the material according to its relative strengths and weaknesses.

Back to the top

Reasons for Rejection

The most common reasons submissions to MedEdPORTAL Publications are rejected during the peer review process are:

  • Insufficient educational context (not generalizable).
  • Mismatch of educational objectives and instructional content.
  • Resource does not contribute to the field (e.g., superficial, reference materials).
  • Lack of evidence of effectiveness or outcomes.

Back to the top

Reviewer Login

Login to MedEdPORTAL Publications' peer review management system: Manuscript CentralExternal Link

Nominate a Reviewer

MedEdPORTAL Publications is accepting reviewer nominations for particularly thoughtful health educators. To nominate your peer, please email mededportal@aamc.org

Subscribe to Our Quarterly Newsletter

Receive featured content & announcements!

ISSN 2374-8265