•  
  •  
 

Journal of Medical Education

Journal of Medical Education Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a reviewer for the Journal of Medical Education (JME). Your expertise and careful feedback are essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of our journal. These guidelines are designed to assist you in providing constructive, professional, and effective peer review.

General Guidelines

  • Peer review is a critical part of scholarly communication. Your goal is to provide constructive, specific, and professional feedback to help authors improve their work.
  • Focus on the content, scientific significance, novelty, coherence, consistency, research design, methods, results, and discussion. For medical education research, consider both practical and theoretical implications.
  • Manuscripts may differ in quality and methodology; your review should highlight key strengths and weaknesses, giving priority to the most important and critical issues.
  • Maintain professionalism, clarity, and neutrality. Avoid letting personal preferences, conflicts of interest, or your own research interests bias your evaluation.

Preparing Your Review

  1. Read Carefully and Take Notes
    • Thoroughly read the manuscript to understand its objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
    • Take notes on key strengths, weaknesses, and areas needing clarification or improvement.
    • Pay particular attention to:
      1. Abstract: Does it clearly summarize the purpose, methods, key findings (including scientific data), and implications?
      2. Introduction: Is the research question or hypothesis clearly defined and well-grounded in the literature, and supported by relevant and up-to-date references?
      3. Methods: Are study design, participants, interventions, and analyses clearly described and appropriate?
      4. Results: Are results clearly presented, accurate, and aligned with research questions?
      5. Discussion: Are findings interpreted appropriately, limitations acknowledged, and implications discussed?
  2. Structure Your Comments

    3. Organize your review to be clear and actionable.

    Possible structures include:
    • A brief summary section outlining the design, key findings, and implications of the manuscript.
    • Point-based: Summarize strengths, identify weaknesses, suggest improvements
    • You may also provide section-based comments in a point-to-point style: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion.
    • Provide clear and concise comments to guide authors in making revisions.
  3. Balance Criticism and Positive Feedback
    • Highlight strengths: clarity, novelty, methodological rigor, relevance to medical education, practical implications.
    • Identify weaknesses: unclear rationale, methodological limitations, insufficient detail, lack of literature coverage, inappropriate analyses.
    • Offer constructive suggestions for improvement, drawing on the available structure or data, rather than merely pointing out errors.

Recommendations for Editors

When submitting your review, you will be asked to recommend one of the following:

  1. Reject
    • Manuscript fails to meet professional standards for this journal.
    • May include serious ethical, plagiarism, or methodological issues.
    • May briefly describe key points if the manuscript is not recommended for publication; detailed error listing is not necessary.
  2. Major Revision

    Manuscript shows promise but need significant efforts to improve, preventing publication in its current form.

    Common issues:
    • Major structural problems (e.g., missing Discussion, poorly organized Introduction)
    • Methodological or analytical shortcomings
    • Summarize major problems and provide specific recommendations for improvement, noting strengths as well.
    • Writing errors or unclear language; please recommend including a certificate of professional English editing with the revised manuscript.
    • Lack of professional style
  3. Minor Revision / Accept
    • Manuscript represents high-quality research with minor issues easily corrected by authors.
    • Identify key points and provide concise suggestions, while emphasize strengths to encourage the authors.
    • Avoid introducing new major points in the 2nd or 3rd revision if they were not raised in the initial review.

Additional Considerations

  • Clarity and Language: Use precise, straightforward language; avoid jargon where possible. Ensure your comments are understandable.
  • Professional Tone: Comments should be respectful, objective, and constructive, focusing on the content rather than the author. Avoid using personal or subjective tones.
  • Avoid Redundancy: Ensure your feedback is concise and avoids unnecessary repetition.
  • Specific, Actionable Feedback: Where possible, indicate exact sections or examples that need revision. Suggest alternative approaches or improvements.
  • Follow-Up: If authors revise and resubmit, consider checking how your comments were addressed and provide additional feedback if necessary.

Summary

A thorough, clear, and constructive review strengthens both the manuscript and the quality of the Journal. By focusing on scientific significance, novelty, research design, methodology, and implications, reviewers help authors improve their work while maintaining JME’s high standards.