Medical Education

Published on behalf of the Association for the Study of Medical Education

Edited by:
Kevin W. Eva

Print ISSN: 0308-0110
Online ISSN: 1365-2923
Frequency: Monthly
Current Volume: 43 / 2009
ISI Journal Citation Reports® Ranking: 2008: 1/23 Education, Scientific Disciplines; 18/62 Health Care Sciences & Services
Impact Factor: 2.181

TopAuthor Guidelines

Medical Education is an international, peer-reviewed, journal with distribution to readers in more than 80 countries. The journal seeks to enhance its position as the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals and aims to publish material of the highest quality reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The contents will be of interest to learners, teachers and researchers. It aims to have a significant impact on scholarship in medical education and, ultimately, on the quality of health care. The journal welcomes papers on any aspect of medical education. The predominant emphasis in Medical Education is on work related to the education of health professionals, and papers on interprofessional education are welcomed.

1. The journal's mission in education and research
Manuscripts and reviews submitted to Medical Education may be used for teaching and research purposes with potential authors and reviewers. Authors and reviewers may be asked from time to time to take part in surveys. Every effort will be made to protect confidentiality. Names will not be passed to third parties.

2. Submission of manuscripts
Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (see http://www.icmje.org/. All papers are considered on the understanding that they have not been published previously in print or electronic fromat and that they are not under consideration by another publication or medium. Medical Education is committed to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct (http://publicationethics.org/) and authors should familiarise themselves with issues of publication ethics noted by COPE as duplicate publication/submission and 'salami slicing' for example, will not be accepted.
Papers not correctly formatted will be returned to the authors for correction and resubmission. Manuscripts should be submitted online http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/medicaleducation Full instructions and support are available on the site. A user ID and password can be obtained on the first visit. All parts of the manuscript must be available in an electronic format; those recommended are: generic rich text format (RTF) or Microsoft Word for text, and JPEG, GIF, TIFF, EPS, PNG, Microsoft PowerPoint or Excel for graphics. It is recommended that, where possible, figures are embedded into a single Microsoft Word document. However, identifying details must be uploaded in a separate document (see section 6, Preparation of Manuscripts, below). If you cannot submit online, please contact the Editorial Office (Medical Education, ITTC South Building, Tamar Science Park, Davy Road, Plymouth PL6 8BX, UK email: med@mededuc.com).

The review process is usually double-blinded so that authors' and reviewers' identities are not disclosed to either party. However, we encourage reviewers to sign their reviews in the interest of providing responsible feedback.

3. Criteria for manuscripts
All manuscripts should meet the following criteria: the writing is clear and the information important and likely to be of interest to an international audience. For research papers, the study methods should be appropriate and the data valid; and for both discussion papers and research papers, the conclusions should be reasonable and supported by data or evidence. Papers are selected for peer review and publication on these criteria. We publish around 20% of manuscripts received each year. We welcome contributions from authors whose first language is not English, although it is recommended that before submitting your manuscript to the journal you ask a colleague familiar with written English to read it through.

4. Editorial and peer review
All submitted manuscripts are read initially by the editor. One or more associate editors may also be involved in early decision making. Papers with insufficient priority for publication are rejected at this stage - sometimes with advice about resubmission in a different category. Other manuscripts are sent to experts in the field for peer review. The review process is usually dobule-blinded so that authors' and reviewers' identities are not disclosed to either party. However, we encourage reviewers to sign their reviews in the interest of providing responsible feedback. Guidelines for reviewers are available at www.mededuc.com. We aim to give at least an initial decision within 12 weeks. All accepted manuscripts are edited according to the journal's style and returned to the author as page proofs for approval. Authors are responsible for all statements made in their work.

5. Categories of manuscript
Medical Education publishes original research papers, review articles, discussion papers, special feature pieces, short reports of research in progress or of educational innovation, commentaries, letters to the editor and book reviews. Specific guidelines are shown below:

Original Research: Generally less than 3,000 words plus a strcutured abstract of no more than 300 words, with a maximum of five tables or figures and 30 references using the Vancouver style. The paper will usually be organised using the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) structure. The context of the work and your choice of methods used for analysis must be made clear in the text. Qualitative and quantitative research approaches are equally welcome. All papers must make it clear how the findings advance understanding or the issue under study.

Review articles: Generally less than 3,000 words plus a structured abstract of no more than 300 words, up to two tables or figures, with more freedom on the number of references which should appear in the Vancouver style.

Short Reports: Generally less than 1,000 words plus abstract of no more than 300 words, with one table or figure and up to five references.

The Cross-Cutting Edge (commissioned papers only): up to 4000 words plus a structured abstract of no more than 300 words, with up to two tables or figures, and up to 40 references in the Vancouver style. [Ideas and suggestions for this section my be submitted in a brief email to med@mededuc.com for the Editor's attention]. See Med Educ 42(10):950-1.

Really Good Stuff: short structured reports of new ideas in medical education. Five hundred words plus structured sub-headings: the context and setting; why the idea or change was necessary; what was done; and evaluation of the results or impact. No abstract, overview box, figures, tables or references. Four authors only. Detailed guidelines on this section are available on Manuscript Central and from www.mededuc.com

Commentaries: up to 1000 words and no more than 10 references; up to five short 'pull-out' quotations should be supplied. No abstract or overview box.

Letters to the Editor: up to 400 words, up to six references in the Vancouver style.

6. Preparation of manuscripts
Two separate documents should be prepared to accompany the manuscript: the identifying document and the copyright assignment form. A checklist to assist in the preparation of the manuscript for submission is also available. Copies of all these documents may be obtained by clicking on 'instructions and forms' on http://Mc.manuscriptcentral.com/medicaleducation.

Word 2007 Will authors please note that Word 2007 is not yet compatible with journal production systems. Unfortunately, the journal cannot accept Microsoft Word 2007 documents until such time as a stable production version is released. Please use Word's 'Save As' option to save your document as an older (.doc) file type.

References
We recommend the use of a tool such as EndNote or Reference Manager for reference management and formatting. EndNote reference styles can be searched fro here: http://www.endnote.com/support/enstyles.asp and Reference Manager reference styles can be searched for here: http://www.refman.com/support/rmstyles.asp.

(1) The anonymous manuscript
All manuscripts should be anonymised before submission to Medical Education. Authors must not identify themselves or their institution in the sumbitted main manuscript file(s) for review. This includes making sure that neither the filename nor the footer/header contains the authors' names. We encourage the use of the active voice, short sentences and clear sub headings in the text. Clambers Guide to Grammar and Usage (1996) can give advise on matters of style. The manuscript should be double-spaced with a wide margin (at least 3 cmm) on either side. All pages should be numbered. Do not use abbreviations. All scientific units should be expressed in SI units. Before submission please remove fields from automatic referencing programs and switch off change tracking. Please supply a word count.

Referencing should be set out in double spacing in the Vancouver style. Authors are advised to consult the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (see http://www.icmje/org/).

Authors should restrict titles to 15 words or fewer (90 characters), and the editor reserves the right to edit titles. The main text should start on a separate page and sections within the text should be appropriately sub-headed. Spelling should conform to the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Both numbers and percentages should be given (not percentages alone) when relevant. Where statistical methods are used in analysis their use should be explained in the setting of the study and an appendix given if the method is particularly unusual or complex. For all research-oriented manuscripts a consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach used should be included. Authors should consult the guidelines for reviewers available by clicking 'instructions and forms' on http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/medicaleducation for further guidance regarding how their manuscript will be evaluated during the peer reviewed process.

Keep a copy of the original manuscript for reference. An email acknowledgement of receipt will be sent by the journal. Any material sent to the Editorial Office will not be returned.

We reserve the right to copy edit papers to house style before final publication, but substantive changes will be the responsibility of the authors.

(2) The identifying document (template available at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/medicaleducation)
A separate identifying document marked 'not for reivew' should be uploaded with the anonymous manuscript, giving the following information:
(1) The full address, institution and contact details of the corresponding author
(2) The names of all authors and details of the contribution each made to the work described in the paper
(3) Details of any funding
(4) Details of any acknowledgements
(5) A statement indicating whether ethical approval was sought for the research described. All work involving research on human subjects must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki (http:\\www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm) and authors must confirm, where appropriate, that informed consent was given. We expect ethical approval to have been sought from an appropriate body, such as an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Independent Ethics Committee (IEC), where such bodies exist to review educational research. Both the manuscript itself and the identifying document should indicate the outcome of the application, even when the decision was that no ethical approval was required. Where no formal framework for ethical approval is currently available, please provide a statement confirming if ethical considerations were made by a qualified person outside the group directly invovled in work reported in this paper. Your identifying document and the manuscript itself should also contain a statement confirming the following points: That the work was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, including, but not limited to there being no potential harm to participants, the anonymity of participants is guaranteed, and the informed consent of participants was obtained.
(6) Details of any potential conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists when professional judgement concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by secondary interests (personal matters such as financial gain, personal relationships or professional rivalry).

(3) The copyright assignment form.
A copyright assignment form (available from 'instructions and forms' on http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/medicaleducation) must be downloaded, completed and signed by all contributing authors and either emailed to mededuc.com as a PDF file or sent by fax and post to the Editorial Office at the time of electronic submission.. We cannot accept submissions without this document.

8. Proofs
Proofs will be sent via e-mail as an Acrobat PDF file. Your e-mail server must be able to accept attachments up to 4MB in size. Acrobat reader is required to read these proofs and it can be downloaded free of charge from www.adobe.com/. This will enable the proof to be opened, read on screen and printed out for any corrections to be made. Further instructions will be sent to authors when they receive their proofs. Authors are required to provide corrections promptly; if you are going to be out of email contact for an extended period, please supply us with the contact details of someone who can attend to the proofs in your absence.

9. Fast tracking and Online Early
A fast tracking system is in place for selected manuscripts. Papers of particular importance or topicality will receive priority when being scheduled for publication. Accepted and published papers may be used for publicity and public relations purposes.

Reviewer Guidlines

The purpose of reviewing
• To assist the editor in making decisions about acceptance or rejection.
• To assist or advise authors on areas in which their paper/research may be improved.
• The provision of constructive feedback is an important part of a reviewer's skills.

Quality
We would like you to advise on the originality, educational importance, and methodological rigour of the paper.
1. Originality: does the work add to what is already in the published literature? If so, what does it add?
2. Educational importance: is the work likely to be of interest to the daily practice of the general international readership of Medical Education? Will it make a difference?
3. Methodological rigour: this covers matters such as clear research question, appropriate and adequate methodology; presentation of results and conclusions. Check boxes are provided to help you look at reliability issues in detail.

Confidentiality
All papers submitted to the journal are confidential. Please do not discuss your report or the paper you have been asked to review with anyone else. If you want to seek the views of a colleague, please contact the Editorial Office first.

Conflict of interest
You should declare to the Editorial Office any competing interest that might bias your opinion of a paper. A competing interest exists when professional judgement concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by secondary interests (personal matters such as financial gain, personal relationships or professional rivalry).

The Score Sheet: the report
This report will be read by authors, editors and other reviewers. We will pass on your report to the author and the other reviewers will read it when a final decision is made, so please do not make any comments that you do not wish them to see (this does not include the 'confidential comments to the editor' box which should be used only in rare circumstances or conflicts of interest ).

We have structured the report form to elicit your opinion on specific aspects of the manuscript. You need not complete every box if every box is not relevant or if you have no comment on a particular aspect of the manuscript, but please use the boxes as a prompt to help you consider the type of information we desire. Hyperlinks have been provided should you want more information about the types of questions that might be addressed in completing each box. A complete list of the questions included in the hyperlinks can be found below.

Please be objective and constructive in writing your report - it may be helpful to write as if you were giving feedback to the author(s) face to face.

Please do not indicate your opinion about acceptance or rejection for publication in your comments about the paper.

In the interests of more accountable review, you are encouraged to put your name at the foot of your comments to the authors - in which case they will be informed of your identity. If you prefer to remain anonymous, do not include your name.

Other matters
• Please return your review within two weeks. E-mail reminders will be sent.

• If a delay is likely please inform the office by email (med@mededuc.com). The paper can then be allocated to another reviewer.

• If you have any questions about your role, how the review process works, or if you seek to clarify something about the manuscript you have been asked to review, please email the editorial office at med@mededuc.com.

• When a final decision on publication has been made, we will email you to let you know the outcome and enclose copies of the other reviewers' reports, where these are available.

• The names of all reviewers for the year are published in the December issue of Medical Education.

• Manuscripts and reviews submitted to Medical Education may be used by our organisation for teaching and research purposes with potential authors and reviewers. Authors and reviewers may be asked from time to time to take part in surveys. Every effort will be made to protect confidentiality.

• Concerns about ethical or serious scientific misconduct should be communicated, in confidence, to the Editor in Chief.

The hyperlinks provided on the scoresheet:

Overall Evaluation and General Comments
What do you consider to be the key messages in this paper? Did you learn anything from reading it that you would consider important for the field to know given existing understanding? Is the paper original?

Title and Abstract
These are arguably the most important pieces of a paper as they will determine whether or not a potential reader chooses to read the full text. Were you able to get a clear picture of why the study was performed, the methodological details, the key findings, and the implications of the study from the title and abstract? Would you recommend any changes to the authors?

Introduction and Conceptual Framework
Does the paper establish a clear conceptual framework, laying out what is already known on the topic, and identifying the gaps in the literature that this paper is an attempt to fill? Is it made clear that the work is original and relevant to a broad, international readership? Is the purpose of the study made clear by the inclusion of a research question or hypotheses?

Methodological Rigour
Has the development and design of the data collection methods (whether quantitative or qualitative) been outlined in a manner that would allow another researcher to replicate the study if one desired to do so? Are the methods appropriate for the stated research question? Is the data analysis appropriate given the problem the authors are trying to address and given the data available?

Results
Are the results clearly presented? Are they consistent with both the methods used and the problem the authors are trying to address? Do they yield a clear answer to the research question?

Discussion and Conclusions
Are the conclusions clearly stated? Do they relate back to the conceptual framework presented in the introduction? Are they appropriate given the methods adopted and results found? Does the study add to the existing body of knowledge in a meaningful and important way? Are limitations in the study design acknowledged and discussed?

Clarity, Length, and Ethical approval
Is the paper well written? Have ethical issues been addressed appropriately with approval noted? Is the paper an appropriate length for the message it contains? Is there reason for concern about conflict of interest, duplicate publication, or 'salami slicing' (i.e., submitting the smallest publishable unit from a larger study)? You may wish to include minor comments such as word change recommendations here, but keep in mind that copy-editing is not your responsibility.

Confidential comments to the editor
(NOTE: This box should be used only in rare circumstances as priority should be given to providing constructive feedback to the authors.)
Is there anything you think the editor should know that you would not want conveyed to the authors?

Conflict of Interest
(If you consider yourself to have a conflict of interest in reviewing this paper or to be unqualified to judge certain aspects of it please note those here)

A competing interest exists when professional judgement concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by secondary interests (personal matters such as financial gain, personal relationships or professional rivalry).