MedEdPORTAL Reviewer Tutorial Contact MedEdPORTAL

Tutorial Directions This self-guided tutorial is designed to provide MedEdPORTAL reviewers with the knowledge and tools to develop outstanding reviews. Simply read each slide. This training should not take more than 5-10 minutes.

MedEdPORTAL Peer Review Reviewers ensure that submissions are accurate, clear, complete and relevant. The MedEdPORTAL Peer Review process: Is comparable to the traditional journal approach to peer review. Is anonymous and confidential. Reviewer names are not revealed. Accepts/rejects submissions based on its scholarship merit and contribution to the medical education field.

Conflict of Interest Reviewers must disclose to the Editor whether any conflicts of interest exist that could bias their opinion. Simply knowing one of the authors or having casual knowledge of the submitted resource does not necessarily mean a conflict of interest exists.

Conflict of Interest Examples of where conflict of interest does exist include: Any situation where the reviewer could gain personally or financially as a result of reviewing the submission. Knowledge of a similar submission under review in the same or other publication outlet. A close collaboration or competition with one of the authors. Review of the submission would benefit a particular product, program or resource related to the reviewer. Any situation that could limit an objective review of any submission.

Peer Reviewer Role After reviewing a submission, reviewers will: 1. Provide thoughtful analysis and feedback to the Editor and Author. 2. Issue a carefully considered editorial decision recommendation to the Editor. Reviewers are asked to complete their review and draft an editorial decision within three weeks of their submission assignment.

Step 1: Review Submission Please review the submission form, Instructor Guide and each of the associated files carefully and thoroughly. 1. The submission form and Instructor Guide must have clear Educational Objectives, appropriate Target Audiences, Critical Reflection and Evidence of Effectiveness. 2. Content within the associated files must be accurate, current and relevant.

Step 2: Complete Evaluation Using the Peer Review Form Questions are derived from commonly accepted criteria for scholarship.* Selecting “NO” for any of the questions does not necessarily warrant a submission rejection. Rationale for “NO” responses is required in the narrative feedback portion. *For more information, refer to the book Scholarship Assessed by Dr. Charles Glassick.

Sample Review Form Questions (1 of 2) Does the author provide educational objectives which are both clear and relevant? Are the objectives clear, realistic and achievable? Are the objectives appropriate for the intended learner audience? Is the educational approach or method appropriate for the stated objectives? Is the educational approach reasonable for the stated learners? Is it clear how all the component resources should be used? Is the content accurate, clear and usable? Are any of the component resources inaccurate, ambiguous or unusable? Are there multimedia quality problems or technical problems? Please note: All “NO” responses require explanation in the narrative feedback section.

Sample Review Form Questions (2 of 2) Does the author reference and/or build upon related work in this area? Does the author demonstrate current knowledge of subject matter? Does the author reference the related work of others? Did the author offer critically reflective comments regarding the resource? Does the author provide critical reflection comments on what worked, what did not work and/or what they learned? Please note: All “NO” responses require explanation in the narrative feedback section.

Step 3: Provide Narrative Feedback Narrative feedback is the most important part of your review. The feedback will be shared with the Author and Editor. 1. Briefly summarize the nature of the submission (typically 2-3 sentences). 2. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses* (typically 2 or more paragraphs). List specific revisions when applicable Explain any “NO” responses to the review form questions 3. Summarize comments and rationale for publication decision (typically 1 or more paragraphs). *Be sure to reference specifics whenever possible

Step 4: Selecting a Publication Decision Recommendation Select one of the following publication decision recommendations: 1. Accept – Accept the submission “as is.” You may still offer suggestions that would improve the submission. 2. Revisions Required – The submitted material requires revisions.* Publication acceptance is pending receipt of satisfactory revisions. 3. Reject – The submission, even with revisions, offers little or no scholarly value. *Revisions to certain resource type (e.g., software programs, videos) may require substantial and cost-prohibitive effort. Consider whether or not the revision is critical. Biomedical issues must always be revised.

Conclusion Reviewers should: Read through all submitted files. Provide feedback that is thorough, specific, honest and courteous. Proofread your comments. Reviewers should not: Provide only a few sentences of feedback. Recommend “Revisions Required” unless you provide a list of required revisions.

Thank you for your service! Please contact us if you have any questions: MedEdPORTAL Peer Review Team