Authors entrust reviewers with their creative effort. As such, their reputation and career may be affected by disclosure of the confidential details of their work’s review. Because of this, reviewers are asked to keep the following information confidential while a submission is under review:
- The name of the author(s) and affiliated institution(s).
- The title and specific nature of the material. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.
MedEdPORTAL employs a single-blind review process. While the identity of the author is available to the reviewer, the identities of the reviewers are not available to the author. This is to ensure an impartial review.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must explicitly disclose to the editor whether any conflicts of interest exist that could bias their opinion of the material they’ve been asked to review. In such cases, reviewers should excuse themselves from reviewing materials by declining the review invitation. Simply knowing one of the authors or having casual knowledge of the submission does not necessarily mean that a conflict of interest exists. Conflicts of interest may include but are not limited to:
- Any situation where a reviewer could gain personally or financially as a result of reviewing the author's submission.
- Knowledge of a similar submission under review in the same or another publication outlet.
- A close collaboration or competition with one of the authors.
- Reviewing a submission that would benefit a particular product, program, or resource that is related to the reviewer.
- Any situation that could limit an objective review of any submission.
It is important to note that, unlike traditional print publications, MedEdPORTAL Publications has no need to limit submissions based on the usual publication constraints (i.e., page length, space, etc.). In addition, MedEdPORTAL Publications has no plans to accept or reject any predetermined percentage of submissions. The decision to accept or reject rests on the educational and scholarly merit of the submission.
Each reviewer should indicate if the resource has time-sensitive content that will likely change within three years of publication. For example, a tutorial on Cox-2 inhibitors or Hormone Replacement Therapy should be flagged as time sensitive.