Adopted by the MedEdPORTAL Editorial Board

1
Reviewer Tutorial A self-guided tutorial
designed to help MedEdPORTAL reviewers develop
outstanding reviews

• Adopted by the MedEdPORTAL Editorial Board
• Association of American Medical Colleges
• www.aamc.org/mededportal
• Last Updated 5/20/08

2
Purpose of Tutorial

• This PowerPoint is a self-guided tutorial that
  explains the new MedEdPORTAL peer review form and
  the associated peer review process.
• Simply read each of the following slides in
  sequence it should take no more than 5 10
  minutes of your time.
• Feel free to use this as a reference in the
  future.

3
MedEdPORTAL Peer Review

• MedEdPORTAL reviewers ensure that submitted
  resources 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 the
  scholarly merit of the submission.
• Relies on the proprietary Rapid Review peer
  review management system.

Reviewers have 3 weeks to perform a review.
4
Conflict of Interest

• Reviewers must disclose to the editor whether any
  conflicts of interest exist that could bias their
  opinion they should recuse 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
• Any situation where a reviewer could gain
  personally or financially as a result of
  reviewing the authors 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.

Please keep your review confidential
5
Role of the Reviewer

• After considering all components of a submission,
  reviewers have two important duties
• To Provide Feedback- reviewers provide thoughtful
  analysis and feedback to the editor and the
  author.
• To Decide - reviewers issue a carefully
  considered publication recommendation to the
  editor.
• While we do not ask reviewers to catch
  grammatical mistakes, we do rely on reviewers to
  detect content that is inaccurate, obsolete, and
  irrelevant please do not assume others will
  catch such errors.

6
Step I Fully Review All Submitted Resources

• Fully and carefully review all submitted
  materials. This includes all submitted files or
  in the case of a web site, all web site pages.
• Be sure to read the author-supplied information
  in the Submission Form (in Rapid Review, click
  the Adobe Acrobat icon to the left of the
  submission title).
• The submission form includes important
  information regarding
• Educational objectives
• Target audience
• Critical reflection
• Evidence of effectiveness

7
Step II Answer the Questions on the Peer Review
Form

• The Yes/No questions on the review form were
  derived from commonly accepted criteria for
  scholarship.
• Selecting a NO response for any of these
  questions does not necessarily mean the
  submission will be rejected.
• Please describe the rationale for all NO
  responses in the narrative feedback section.
• The following two slides offer additional
  explanation for each of the questions.

For more information refer to the book
Scholarship Assessed by Dr. Charles Glassick
8
Selected 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 objectives and learners?
• Is it clear how all the component resources
  should be used?
• Is the content of the submission sufficiently
  accurate, clear, and usable?
• Are any of the component resources inaccurate,
  ambiguous, or unusable?
• Are there multimedia quality problems or
  technical problems?

Be sure to describe any NO responses to these
questions in the narrative feedback section
9
Selected 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 provide evidence of the relative
  value or impact of this submission for the
  intended audience?
• Does the author provide evidence of the value or
  impact that the submission had on the intended
  learner audience?
• Did the author offer critically reflective
  comments regarding this resource?
• Does the author provide critical reflection
  comments on what worked, what did not work,
  and/or what they learned?

Be sure to describe any NO responses to these
questions in the narrative feedback section
10
Step III Provide Narrative Feedback

• The narrative feedback is the most important part
  of the review process and will be shared with the
  author and the editor. Please include the
  following
• Briefly summarize the nature of the submission
  (typically 2 - 3 sentences)
• Discuss the strengths and weaknesses (typically
  2 or more paragraphs)
• List specific revisions, if applicable
• Describe any NO responses to the questions on the
  review form
• Summary comments and rationale for decision
  (typically 1 or more paragraphs)
• Answer the following question What has the
  author accomplished?
• Provide a compelling case for your recommendation

Be sure to reference specifics whenever possible
11
Selecting a Publication Recommendation

• Select one of the following publication
  recommendations
• Accept accept the submission as is. You may
  still offer suggestions that would improve the
  resource.
• Accept with Revisions The submitted material is
  accepted for publication, pending receipt of
  satisfactory revisions.
• Reject the submission, even with revisions,
  offers little or no scholarly value.

Keep in mind that revisions to certain kinds of
resources (e.g., software programs, videos) may
require substantial (and sometimes
cost-prohibitive) effort consider whether or not
the revision is critical. Undisputed biomedical
issues should always be revised.
12
Dos and Donts of Reviewing

• Do
• Read through all submitted documents.
• Provide feedback that is specific, honest and
  courteous.
• Proofread your comments.
• Do not
• Provide only a few sentences of feedback.
• Recommend to Accept with Revisions unless you
  provide a list of required revisions.

13
Thank You for Serving as a Reviewer!
Questions? Email peerreview_at_aamc.org
14
(No Transcript)