Impartial assessment is an essential component of scholarly review. Peer review is the attentive, unbiased assessment of materials submitted to publication outlets by reviewers and is the very foundation of academic publication. Collegiality, respect for the author's dignity, and constructive criticism should undergird the review process. Reviewers ensure that submitted resources are accurate, clear, complete, and relevant to medical and dental education. MedEdPORTAL invited reviewers and the peer-review process serve as an important quality gatekeeper for MedEdPORTAL.

In 2004 a Task Force convened by the Association of American Medical Colleges developed an extensive peer review form. This form was based on the commonly accepted Glassick* standards of educational scholarship. In an effort to improve and streamline the peer review process, the MedEdPORTAL Editorial Board revised the review criteria and form in December 2007.

*Glassick CE, Huber MR, Maeroff GI. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. 1997; San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peer Reviewer Tutorial [Top of Page]

ALL MedEdPORTAL peer reviewers are strongly encouraged to download and view the MedEdPORTAL Peer Reviewer Tutorial (PowerPoint) at least once before completing a reviewer assignment. The tutorial is very brief.

Peer Review Form [Top of Page]

A copy of the current MedEdPORTAL Peer-Review Form (version 2.0) is available for download and review offline. When completing a reviewer assignment, all reviewers must utilize the online peer review form available through Rapid Review. Reviews are due exactly three weeks (including weekends and holidays) after the review assignment.

Evaluation Criteria [Top of Page]

To evaluate assigned submissions, reviewers must, in part, scrutinize the quality and quantity of information contained within both the provided submission form (that the author completed) and within the resource itself. Certain submissions reference external web sites that contain some or all of the content.

The peer review form contains 7 Yes/No questions and 2 open-ended questions. Not each question will apply to every submission; in such cases, simply indicate Not Applicable. Likewise, reviewers are free to consider certain items as more meaningful and/or relevant than others. As this information will be shared with the authors, please be courteous and constructive in your feedback.

All reviewers are required to issue a single, final recommendation to Accept with Acclamation, Accept, Accept with Revisions, or Reject. Notably, this decision should not necessarily be based on a sum total of the Likert-type items; instead, it should be based on an overall assessment of the resource according to its relative strengths and weaknesses.

Unlike traditional manuscripts that can be revised or modified with relative ease, certain MedEdPORTAL resources (e.g., software programs, video recordings, etc.) may require substantial resources and effort to remedy a relatively trivial problem or anomaly. Please keep this in mind if you are considering issuing a recommendation to Accept with Revisions. In contrast, undisputed factual errors should always be corrected before the material is published. If the final editorial decision is to Accept with Revisions, the editor will determine whether or not the appropriate revisions have been made. The decision to Reject should be issued i) in cases where the submission lacks scholarly value, or ii) when the resource has serious flaws that are irremediable or that require extensive revision.

While it may be argued that virtually all educational materials have some degree of scholarly value, reviewers should consider how generalizable the resource is. In other words, can the resource be downloaded and implemented by the intended audience without additional effort or explanation? Reviewers may recommend or even insist that incomplete submissions be accepted only after the authors have made available additional supportive instruction, explanation, definition, faculty development materials, and/or usage guides. This may take the form of instructor's guides, presenter notes for PowerPoint slides, or something similar.

Time-Sensitive Materials [Top of Page]

Each reviewer should indicate (on the form) if the resource has time-sensitive content that will likely change within the next three years. For example, a tutorial on Cox-2 inhibitors or Hormone Replacement Therapy should be flagged as time sensitive.

Publication Threshold [Top of Page]

It is important to note that, unlike traditional print publications, MedEdPORTAL has no need to limit submissions based on the usual publication constraints (i.e., page length, space, etc.). In addition, MedEdPORTAL 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.

Confidentiality [Top of Page]

Authors entrust reviewers with their creative effort. As such, their reputation and career may be affected by disclosure of the confidential details of the review of their work. Because of this, reviewers are asked to keep the following review information confidential when they agree to conduct a review:

• The name of the author(s) and affiliated institution(s)

• The title and specific nature of the material
  

Blinding [Top of Page]

Due to the nature of the materials submitted to MedEdPORTAL, it is often impossible to completely mask the identity of the author(s); however, the identity of reviewers will not be released to those authors.

Conflict of Interest [Top of Page]

Reviewers must explicitly disclose to the editor whether any conflicts of interest exists that could bias their opinion of the material they are asked to review; they should excuse themselves from reviewing materials in such cases. Simply knowing one of the authors or having casual knowledge of the submitted resource does not necessarily mean that a conflict of interest exists. Conflicts of interest may include but are not limited to:

• Reviewers are asked to be aware that submitted materials may not be used in any way until it has been published.

• 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.

• Lastly, reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

Narrative Feedback [Top of Page]

The most important part of the review is the narrative feedback written by each reviewer. Reviewer feedback is used by editorial staff to make editorial decisions (e.g., accept, reject, etc.) and is sent to authors so that they might further enhance and refine their work.

At a minimum, reviewer comments should address three important issues:

• Provide specific feedback - describe specific strengths and weakness of the resource. Reference (where possible) specific examples. If the recommendation is to Accept with Revisions be sure to list exactly what needs to be revised.

• Indicate the contribution to the field - describe IF and HOW the submission contributes to the field.

• Defend your editorial recommendation - provide enough information for the editor to build a compelling case for your editorial recommendation (i.e., to accept, reject, etc.)

Reasons for Rejection [Top of Page]

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

• Insufficient educational context (not generalizable)

• Mismatch of educational objectives and instructional content.

• Resource simply does not contribute to the field (e.g. superficial, reference materials)

For questions specific to MedEdPORTAL peer-review please contact the peer-review staff at peerreview@aamc.org or 202-828-0496