Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Medical Education Development is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal with a mission to disseminate new developments in the broad field of medical education so that they may be adopted and implemented in different settings.
Medical Education Development targets a broad international audience of medical educators and others with an interest in medical education. This comprises, but is not limited to, medical school faculty members, faculty members of graduate medical programs, researchers in medical education, administrators of medical education programs, continuing medical education developers and providers, and hospitals, health systems, and other organizations with an interest in promoting quality improvement through education. The journal seeks to establish a niche in the area of detailed descriptions of educational innovations. Examples include new medical education technologies (e.g. simulation programs), innovative curricula, and new approaches to tackling existing problems in medical education. With few exceptions, we are not interested in the following:

  • Descriptive studies of knowledge, attitudes, or practices of students, graduate trainees, or practicing physicians.
  • Papers which target health professionals outside the medical profession (e.g. nurses, social workers).
  • Papers which deal primarily with clinical or basic science topics but not with medical education

All submissions must be of interest to a broad, international audience. Before considering submitting to Medical Education Development ask yourself, “Would someone with an interest in medical education in a different part of the world be interested in my paper?” Sample titles of potential papers of interest and not of interest to the journal are shown below:

Papers of Interest

  • Educating medical students about diagnosis of tuberculosis via the Internet (An internet-based curriculum could easily be used by educators all over the world.)
  • Improving the attitudes of medical students toward primary care careers through a brief educational intervention. (The lack of students choosing primary care is a common problem in many countries. Furthermore, the paper includes an educational intervention which could be implemented in other settings.)
  • Development, implementation, and proposed analysis of a new curriculum in evidence-based medicine. (This paper describes an educational intervention. Furthermore, though the title indicates that the analysis is not complete, it does include a plan for analysis. )

Papers not of Interest

  • Improving quality of care for patients with tuberculosis in rural Mozambique. (This paper is too parochial. The challenges of caring for patients with tuberculosis in Mozambique may be quite different from those in other parts of the world.)
  • Why do medical students not choose primary care? A survey of graduating students in three countries. (Though this paper has an international focus, the title indicates that it is a descriptive study. It does not include an educational innovation.)
  • Do we need a new approach to teaching EBM? Thoughts about a new type of curriculum. (The title of this paper suggests that it is essentially an opinion-piece, which includes neither a detailed description of an innovation nor any planned or completed analysis. )

 

Section Policies

Editorials

Editorials are usually written by the editor-in-chief or the associate editors, or else solicited by the editorial staff from a well known scholar in an area of interest to the journal. You are welcome, however, to submit an editorial for consideration. Editorials should include a perspective or viewpoint that would be of interest to the journal’s international readership.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Innovations

Innovations is the category for which we anticipate the greatest number of submissions.

Active Solicitation Model: A great many medical education innovations are developed and implemented around the world without any plan for dissemination in a scholarly journal. Many medical education innovators are often too burdened with clinical or educational responsibilities or have too little experience with scholarly publication to consider submitting a paper, even though their innovation may be relevant and important for others. Medical Education Development seeks to overcome this problem by (1) actively seeking and encouraging previously unpublished educational innovations; and (2) assisting authors with preparation of a manuscript in a straightforward, structured format. Many submissions will be solicited directed by the editorial board. If you have, however, developed an educational program, tool, or methodology you believe is unique and would be of interest to an international audience, please consider submitting a paper in this category directly to the journal.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Reviews

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Studies

Case studies are simply interesting or unique experiences you have had in the area of medical education. Each case study should describe one specific experience with a learner, educator, or program. Case studies should be written in the first person. We are interested in what you learned through the experience or how the experience changed you. Submissions in this category should generally be free of strong opinions, conjectures, or recommendations for others. Case studies are limited to 1000 words.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letters to the Editor

Medical Education Development will regularly publish letters to the editor which directly address content published in the journal.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Early Release

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

All of our journals follows the WAME Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals about peer-review. The Editorial Board of each journal will immediately screen all articles submitted for publication in that journal. Those articles which fail to reach the scientific standards of the journal may be declined without further review. Those articles which satisfy the requirements of the Editorial Board will be sent to a maximum of three referees. These are experts in the field who have agreed to provide a rapid assessment of the article. Every effort will be made to provide an editorial decision as to acceptance for publication within 4-6 weeks of submission. Referees may request a revision of the article to be made. In this case, it is generally understood that only one revised version can be considered for a further appraisal under the peer-review system. The Editorial Board of each journal is responsible for the final selection of referees to conduct the peer-review process for that journal. The names of referees will not be made available to authors. However, referees will be informed as to the identity of the authors whose articles are subject to review. All members of the Editorial Board and referees are asked to declare any competing interests they may have in reviewing a manuscript. If on receiving the editorial decision concerning their manuscript authors are not satisfied they are invited to appeal to the Editorial Office. In cases in which this is considered appropriate a second opinion on the manuscript will be requested.

 

Publication Frequency

All papers are published as soon as they have been accepted, by adding them to the "current" volume's Table of Contents.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Pre- and post-prints

PAGEPress allows and encourages authors to deposit both their pre- and post-prints in Open-Access institutional archives or repositories. The primary benefit of pre- and post-print self-archiving is reaching a larger audience which enhances the visibility and impact of your research.

 

 

Publication Ethics

Editorship

PAGEPress strongly support the mission of the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors; all individuals collaborating with PAGEPress are strongly invited to comply with this mission.

Ethics

All research articles published by PAGEPress journals are subject to a rigorous ethical standards. Our journals endorses the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the COPE International Standards for Editors and Authors Guidelines. The Editorial Board of each journal is responsible for the form the peer review process will take; therefore, all authors in the biomedical field must adhere to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. PAGEPress endorses the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Policy Statement on Geopolitical Intrusion on Editorial Decisions, too.

Plagiarism
The Editorial Board of our journals will immediately screen all articles submitted for publication in that journal. All submissions we receive are checked for plagiarism by using online available tools as eTBLASTor iThenticate®. Any suspected misconduct ends up with a quick rejection and is then reported to the European Science Foundation and to the US Office of Research Integrity.

The European Science Foundation released a Code of Conduct on Research Integrity, which is fully supported by our journals. All authors submitting papers to our journals are required to adopt these policies.

Below some online resource to help you in understanding plagiarism:

Roig, M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. St Johns University.

Long TC, Errami M, George AC, et al. Responding to Possible Plagiarism. Science 2009; 323:1293-1294.

Lewis J, Ossowski S, Hicks J, Errami M, and Garner HR. Text similarity: an alternative way to search MEDLINE. Bioinformatics 2006; 22:2298-2304.

Conflict of Interests

Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). These relationships vary from negligible to great potential for influencing judgment. Not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. On the other hand, the potential for conflict of interest can exist regardless of whether an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

All participants in the peer-review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest. Disclosure of such relationships is also important in connection with editorials and review articles, because it can be more difficult to detect bias in these types of publications than in reports of original research. Editors may use information disclosed in conflict-of-interest and financial-interest statements as a basis for editorial decisions.

When authors submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist. Authors should do so in the manuscript on a conflict-of-interest notification page, providing additional detail, if necessary, in a cover letter that accompanies the manuscript. Increasingly, individual studies receive funding from commercial firms, private foundations, and government. The conditions of this funding have the potential to bias and otherwise discredit the research.

Scientists have an ethical obligation to submit creditable research results for publication. Moreover, as the persons directly responsible for their work, researchers should not enter into agreements that interfere with their access to the data and their ability to analyze them independently, and to prepare and publish manuscripts. Authors should describe the role of the study sponsor, if any, in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. If the supporting source had no such involvement, the authors should so state. Biases potentially introduced when sponsors are directly involved in research are analogous to methodological biases.

Editors may request that authors of a study funded by an agency with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome sign a statement, such as "I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis." Editors should be encouraged to review copies of the protocol and/or contracts associated with project-specific studies before accepting such studies for publication. Editors may choose not to consider an article if a sponsor has asserted control over the authors' right to publish.

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. As in the case of authors, silence on the part of reviewers concerning potential conflicts may mean either that conflicts exist and the reviewer has failed to disclose them or conflicts do not exist. Reviewers must therefore also be asked to state explicitly whether conflicts do or do not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial involvement in any of the issues they might judge. Other members of the editorial staff, if they participate in editorial decisions, must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which a conflict of interest exists.

Informed Consent

PAGEPress journals strictly follows the ICMJE Protection of Research Participants policy detailed at http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/protection-of-research-participants.html

Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. When informed consent has been obtained, editors may request authors to provide a copy before making the editorial decision.

Manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors' confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors' rights may be violated by disclosure of the confidential details during review of their manuscript. Reviewers also have rights to confidentiality, which must be respected by the editor. Confidentiality may have to be breached if dishonesty or fraud is alleged but otherwise must be honored.

Editors must not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings.

Protection of Human Subjects and Animals in Research

When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.

See our policy about Peer Review

See our policy about Privacy

 
© PAGEPress 2008-2018     -     PAGEPress is a registered trademark property of PAGEPress srl, Italy.     -     VAT: IT02125780185     •     Privacy