Christopher S. Candler, MD
Editor and Co-Founder, MedEdPORTAL

Associate Dean for Medical Education
Associate Professor of Medicine
The University of Oklahoma College of Medicine

October 2009: The Anatomy of Peer Review [Top of Page]

The MedEdPORTAL peer review process was designed to mirror common practices used by most refereed journals. Formally trained experts are invited to review submissions and provide a publication recommendation. MedEdPORTAL currently maintains a database of more than eight hundred reviewers who represent most of the basic science and clinical disciplines. The vast majority of submissions are reviewed by two individuals. A third reviewer occasionally offers another perspective when necessary. Reviewers use a standardized peer review form that is based on modifications to the six criteria developed by Charles Glassick for evaluating scholarship. Unlike most print journals, MedEdPORTAL asks that all of its reviewers work through training materials designed to improve the consistency and quality of reviews. For certain subject areas, an associate editor helps select reviewers, read reviews, and draft a publication decision letter. The editor issues the final publication decision. For more information about the MedEdPORTAL peer review process visit the MedEdPORTAL Peer Review Overview page.

September 2009: Divergent Reviews [Top of Page]

Many authors that are new to scholarly publishing are surprised when they receive a critical decision letter from the editor that contains positive comments from one of the reviewers. The reality of the peer review process is that the reviews for any given resource are often divergent. One review may be very positive while the other review may be neutral or negative in tone. After all, each reviewer comes to the resource with different expertise, perspective, biases, and experience; hence, it is not surprising that reviews may vary in tone and recommendation. In addition, because we ask that all reviewers comment on both the strengths and weaknesses of a submission, most reviews will have at least one or two favorable comments. The Editor and Associate Editors must carefully scrutinize both the submission and the reviewer's publication rationale before a decision letter is created. Because MedEdPORTAL has no page length constraints we are free to base our publication decisions solely on the scholarly merit of the submission. If authors have questions they are encouraged to contact the Editor.

August 2009: Call for Reviewer Nominations [Top of Page]

MedEdPORTAL strives to maintain a comprehensive pool of expert reviewers. At this time MedEdPORTAL is asking the community to nominate reviewers for the following specialty areas: Pediatrics, Anesthesiology, Neurology, General Surgery, Dermatology, and Psychiatry. The MedEdPORTAL editorial team asks that nominations be restricted to individuals that have an interest and expertise in medical education. Nominated individuals will then receive an email from MedEdPORTAL describing the project and outlining reviewer responsibilities.

Please send all nominations to peerreview@aamc.org.

June 2009: About the MedEdPORTAL Peer Review Form [Top of Page]

Authors occasionally ask about the nature and origin of the MedEdPORTAL peer review form. This form is used by MedEdPORTAL reviewers to rate the submission across a variety of characteristics, to indicate a publication recommendation, and to provide feedback to the author and editor(s). The original MedEdPORTAL peer review form was developed by an AAMC Task Force in 2004. It consisted of twenty-nine questions organized around the principles of scholarship as defined by Charles Glassick in his 1997 book, ¿Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate.¿ This form was subsequently revised in early 2008 in an effort to simplify and streamline the review process. The new form consists of ten questions designed to capture essential aspects regarding the submission. Notably, MedEdPORTAL asks each of its reviewers to read through a reviewer training tutorial designed to help them understand the purpose of each question on the form. Few publishing venues offer this kind of training to its reviewers.

MedEdPORTAL openly shares its peer review form. Prospective MedEdPORTAL authors are encouraged to review the form prior to submission: MedEdPORTAL Peer Review Form

May 2009: Importance of an Instructor's Guide [Top of Page]

It is not always clear how one should use certain MedEdPORTAL submissions. While the author of a resource may have a detailed understanding of the material and how it might be used, it is often difficult to hand this off to another user without providing additional information. This type of information is typically found in an instructor's guide. Based on past submissions we now ask that all submissions to MedEdPORTAL include a succinct instructor's guide. These instructor's guides help other faculty better understand the background of the resource and how it could be improved. An instructor's guide is typically 1-3 pages in length and includes: the purpose and objectives of the submission (including the educational objectives), the conceptual background (why and how it was developed), the name and purpose of all files contained within the submission, practical implementation advice (materials needed, length of session, faculty/facilitator needs, preparation needs, etc.), implementation suggestions (including common pitfalls, tips for success, etc.), limitations of the resource, and potential ideas for improving or expanding the submission. Finally, consider adding any other information that might help other faculty understand and use the resource.