FAQs

MedEdPublish (ISSN 2312-7996) is an open access, specialist practitioner e-journal that enables academics, teachers, clinicians, researchers and students to publish their experiences, views and research findings relating to teaching, learning and assessment in medical and health professions education.

A key feature of MedEdPublish is that articles are published rapidly, with the peer review process beginning following publication.  Articles are screened before publication only to ensure their content is appropriate for a medical and health professions journal, and that they meet minimum standards of legibility. They are not judged at this stage on their validity, significance or potential impact.

The post-publication peer review approach is a cornerstone of the MedEdPublish ethos, as it allows the medical education community to provide feedback and share expertise with colleagues at all levels. Post-publication peer review is also an open and transparent process that avoids editorial bias and increases the speed of publication.

MedEdPublish is a continuous publication journal and articles are published as quickly as possible following submission, after initial checks and approval by an Editor.

MedEdPublish articles are peer reviewed after publication, with open reviews by named reviewers available to be read, considered and responded to. Articles which receive two favourable reviews from members of our Panel can be considered to have 'passed' peer review and will be eligible for indexing.
 

MedEdPublish is an open access post-publication peer review journal. Articles submitted to MedEdPublish are peer reviewed following publication. Prior to publication manuscripts are checked by the Editor to ensure that their content is appropriate for a medical and health professions education e-journal and that the manuscript meets the MedEdPublish criteria for publication. Articles that meet this criteria are processed, assigned a DOI and published and with publication the peer review process begins. 

MedEdPublish articles are peer reviewed on the website by the medical education community. Reviewers may include the MedEdPublish Editor, members of the Editorial Board, Guest Editors, the Panel of Reviewers and importantly, the MedEdPublish community. 

This open approach to peer review is a cornerstone of the MedEdPublish ethos as it allows the medical education community to provide feedback and share expertise with colleagues at all levels. Post-publication peer review is also an open and transparent process that avoids editorial bias while increasing the speed of publication.

Whilst the traditional double-blind; peer review process in academic publishing has many advantages, it can lead to delays in publication, and is open to accusations of a lack of transparency and possible editorial bias. Publishing articles prior to review removes the potential for delays in publication, whilst post-publication peer review maintains the process of work being critically assessed by the academic community and enabling that process to be transparent.

No.  MedEdPublish is a fully-fledged post-publication peer-reviewed journal, and is not a pre-print server. This means that any article which appears in MedEdPublish is considered published.  

All manuscripts undergo a basic screen by the in-house editorial team to ensure that they meet minimum criteria.  Articles presented for a special theme are checked for relevance to the theme.  If relevant, they are sent to the Theme Guest Editor for management.  We also check that submissions are complete, ensure that research articles have appropriate ethics compliance statements, and screen for plagiarism. Please see the Guidelines for Authors.

The current Editor of MedEdPublish is Professor Richard Hays, Professor of Medical Education at James Cook University, Australia. He is supported by a team of associate editors and an Editorial Board. You can see details of all our Board members here.

In March 2019, MedEdPublish was indexed in DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) and in June 2019 achieved the DOAJ Seal of Approval for Open Access Journals. This significant step aims to secure the listing of MedEdPublish as a quality peer-reviewed open access journal.  All articles that have achieved a 'Recommended' status are currently being indexed with the service. You can view our listing here.

To view our full indexing statement, please click here.

Failure to achieve ‘Recommended’ status does not mean 'Rejected'.  It simply means that the mean rating of Review Panel members is less than the threshold star rating.  Reviewers may have identified flaws that undermine the results and conclusions, unless they are fixed.  In a traditional journal, this status would usually lead to a request for revisions prior to publication. At MedEdPublish, the article remains published and can be cited, although may be less accessible to readers through bibliographic indexes. 

Should authors choose to revise and re-submit to address reviewers’ comments, further reviews may achieve ‘Recommended’ status. Please click here to view our Revised Article policy.

'Recommended' status is determined by an article's star-rating.  To become 'Recommended' an article must be reviewed by a minimum of two Review Panel members and receive at least two 4-star (or above) ratings, OR at least two 3-star ratings AND one 4-star (or above) rating.  Panel members are selected by the Editors for their expertise in reviewing articles within the scope of the journal.  For more information on 'Recommended' status, please see the Guidelines for Authors and Guidelines for Reviewers.

A DOI or Digital Object Identifier is a unique alphanumeric string assigned to a digital object, such as an electronic journal, article, report, or thesis.  Each DOI is unique and serves as a stable, persistent link to the full-text of an electronic item on the Internet. Unlike a URL, a DOI does not change over time, even if the item moves to a new location, the DOI stays the same.

All MedEdPublish articles are allocated a unique DOI number. 

Contribution points are awarded to authors, reviewers and commentators as recognition of their support to promoting the open access post-publication peer review process and dialogue within medical education. Points will be awarded as follows:

• 50 points per article submitted which is published;
• 30 points per article review;
• 10 points per comment.

The number of points accumulated may contribute towards an application for AMEE Fellowship.

Your contribution points will be visible to you in your My Reviewing Activity area at the top of the Home Page.

To search for an article on MedEdPublish, click on the Manuscript Search option from the left side menu bar and enter your search term in the search box. This could be a keyword, title, author name etc. To narrow your search, click on the additional filters button to search by author, title, keyword, publication date etc.

There is a general search option at the top of the Home Page which will search for any content within the MedEdPublish site.

Yes, MedEdPublish articles can be cited exaclty as you would cite any other journal article.

This will depend on the citation style you are using, but you will usually need to include Author, Date, Title, Journal, Volume, Issue, Article number and increasingly DOI. You will find this information by clicking the 'cite' button to the top right of the MedEdPublish article you wish to cite. You can also use tools such as Google Scholar or a capture button in your reference management software to harvest the article metadata, but these services do not always obtain full or accurate citations, and you will need to check each citation before inclusion in your work.

Please note that as an e-journal MedEdPublish articles do not include page numbers. 

No - articles awaiting peer review in MedEdPublish are officially published and able to be cited.  When the articles are accessed, readers will be able to see the entire history of the article, including reviews and responses to reviews.  

Although MedEdPublish will do everything reasonable to ensure that the article receives at least two reviews by Panel members, this cannot be guaranteed within a specific time frame. Authors who have not received two Panel Member reviews after six months may wish to contact the editorial team.

As we do not have the facility to lock articles to further reviews, once an article is published, it cannot be reverted to preprint status or taken down except in specific circumstances outlined in our retraction policy. It will retain its permanent DOI and will be registered with Crossref which means the content will be detectable by similarity-checking software employed by most academic publishers.

As an Open Access journal, MedEdPublish articles can be freely distributed, providing this is done under the terms of our CC-BY-SA license. 

Yes. Log in to MedEdPublish using your AMEE username and password, go to Personal Settings and in the Category Notifications area, select as many of the subject areas as you like, select your notification preferences, then click Save.

There are many benefits to publishing in this journal, including:

• Rapid publication in a highly-visible open access journal
• Open and transparent peer review process
• Open dialogue with reviewers
• Opportunity to revise articles

No, anyone can submit an article to the e-journal provided that they are registered on the MedEdPublish website and their article meets the journal’s criteria for publication. AMEE (Individual or Student) members will receive a 20% discount on all articles submitted to the journal. 

Authorship may be offered to individuals who contribute to the planning, conduct, analysis, interpretation of data and writing /revising manuscripts. We recommend that authors adopt the ICJME Recommendations to indicate their contributions to the paper. Corresponding authors are responsible for obtaining confirmation of authorship and consent to publish from co-authors. Please see the Authors Guidelines for more details.   

The MedEdPublish editorial team reserves the right to contact all authors to confirm authorship details.

Contributions that are insufficient to meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to provide the name and affiliation of all of those listed in the Acknowledgments section.  Please see Authors Guidelines for more details.

The list of authors may not be changed once an article is published.  Should a revision result in changes to author numbers or sequence, this should be reflected in the log when submitting the revised article.  As each version of an article has its own DOI, these can be individually cited and accessed.    

As an Open Access journal, MedEdPublish is free to view by members of the public. All articles are discoverable via Google Scholar and Recommended articles are indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

Published articles are available to be reviewed by members of the Panel of Reviewers, AMEE members and MedEdPublish Registered Readers.  They are named reviews rather than anonymous reviews. Only reviews from Panel members count towards an article's 'Recommended' status.

To submit an article, you need to log in to the site using your AMEE username and password.

If you do not have a username or password you should register on the MedEdPublish website to create a free login.

Once logged in, manuscripts can be submitted on the web form which becomes available after clicking the Submit button.

The submitting author, who is always the corresponding author, is responsible for the paper during the submission and post-publication peer review process and should ensure:
 

• All co-authors have been included in the author list
• All co-authors have read and approved the paper as submitted
• They have supplied a valid email address for correspondence
• They have added [email protected] to their 'safe senders' list so as not to miss important correspondence relating to their manuscript

 
The MedEdPublish Team takes no responsibility for disputes over authorship.

We aim to publish accepted articles as quickly as possible. If the email address associated with your account is correct you will receive email updates on the status of your manuscript. To check your email address, log in and visit My Account. Alternatively, to track the progress of your article, log in with your AMEE or MedEdPublish username and click on the My Manuscripts tab at the top of the Home Page.
 

You can submit your article for editorial screening free of charge. If your article is accepted for publication you will be asked to pay an article processing charge (APC) to cover the administrative cost of processing and publishing your manuscript, including editorial checks, hosting, typesetting and other aspects of production, as well as technical development and maintenance of the publishing platform and administrative support during peer review. You will find details of current fees and the discounts available here.

Once a manuscript has been submitted it is closed for editing. If our team identify problems with the content or format of your manuscript we will reopen it to allow you to make changes, but this will significantly slow the publication process. To keep processing time to a minimum, please ensure that you are happy with your manuscript by using the Preview function, and make any necessary changes prior to submission. 

We are unable to make changes to published manuscripts, other than as described in our policy on alterations to published articles. However, it will be possible for you to submit a second version of your article if desired, following the receipt of reviews providing that substantial changes are made. This would be listed separately as a new article and would appear in the latest issue. You can view our Revised Article policy here.

 

Yes.  Dialogue between authors and reviewers is actively encouraged by the MedEdPublish Team.

'Recommended' articles have been positively reviewed by at least two members of our Review Panel and can be considered to have 'passed' peer review, making them eligible for indexing in academic journal indexing systems, such as Medline, PubMedCentral, DOAJ, etc. MedEdPublish is currently indexed in DOAJ and further indexing applications are underway. You can see more details on our indexing page.

The aim of MedEdPublish is to create an environment for the promotion of positive and constructive feedback. If you receive a review that you feel is unfair or unrepresentative you have the right to reply by posting a comment. Any comments that do not meet house rules or are considered to be defamatory or derogatory will be removed by the MedEdPublish administrator. Any abuse should be reported immediately to [email protected] with a link to the comment, or by accesing the 'Report Abuse' link at the bottom of the left side menu.

If you receive a review that you feel is unfair or unrepresentative, you have the right to reply by posting a comment.  Any comments that do not meet house rules or are considered to be defamatory or derogatory will be removed by the MedEdPublish administrator.  Any abuse should be reported immediately to [email protected] with a link to the copy, or by accessing the 'Report Abuse' link at the bottom of the left side menu.

 

We urge authors to obtain sound methodological advice, and have colleagues read and provide feedback on their manuscripts prior to submission.  Someone not involved in the immediate field could read the manuscript to ensure that it flows well in plain English.  Authors for whom English is not the first language should obtain expert English language editing assistance.  All submitted manuscripts should be the best work possible.

The standard for MedEdPublish is to publish original scholarship that reflects the best available evidence. Reviewers will include experts who have a deep understanding of the material presented and the relevant literature. Should their judgements be that an article requires significant changes to be considered sound, they may write negative reviews, resulting in an average of only 1 or 2 stars. In these situations, authors are invited to submit a revised version that addresses the referees' criticisms around correctable faults. Regardless of whether a revision is submitted, the original article will remain accessible as is, including the reviews, comments and responses. You can view our Revised Article policy here.

We believe that authors are often best placed to know who the experts are in their field, and are invited to suggest referees for their articles, following certain criteria. Should nominated referees accept the invitation, they become temporary members of the Panel of Reviewers, for the article in question only. The Editors are not obliged to accept author nominated reviewers, and may also invite other referees from the Panel of Reviewers. 

As peer review takes place after publication, authors may submit a second version of their article that addresses any concerns that were identified during the peer-review process. Should a second version of an article be published, referees of the previous version may re-review the article. Both versions of an article are accessible, each with their own DOI (digital object identifier) and may be cited individually. The entire history of submission and review and revision process is therefore displayed openly. 

Both versions of every article are retained and are accessible to readers, but if readers visit an older version of an article, for example via a citation, the most recent version will be accessible with the older version.

A second version of an article may be submitted at any time, but ideally within six months of publication of the first version.  The second version should reflect responses to reviewers comments.  We require authors to wait for at least 2 reviews before revising, so that your revision can build on a wider range of comments. 

To submit a revised version of your article, you must be signed into your MedEdPublish account that you used to submit the original version. Go to Submit an Article from the left side menu and select the article you wish to revise from the drop down list under the Revised Article section.

Alternatively, go to My Manuscripts and select the article you wish to revise from the list and click 'Revise'.  

The MedEdPublish Panel of Reviewers review published MedEdPublish articles on topics of interest to them. Each Panel Member commits to reviewing a minimum of six articles per year, adhering to the Guidelines for Reviewers. Authors are encouraged to reply to their reviews and Panel Members should engage with replies from Authors.

The benefits of joining the panel include being alerted to research work in your area of interest, having greater visibility within your research community and gaining recognition as a reviewer and experience of reviewing and engaging with authors in a constructive way.

Each Panel Member commits to reviewing a minimum of six articles per year, adhering to the Guidelines for Reviewers.

To express your interest in joining the panel, please contact [email protected]

Once a manuscript is submitted via the online manuscript submission form it is sent to the Editor or Theme Editor who will assess whether it meets the MedEdPublish minimum standards. If approved, the article is published on the website for open review. Notifications are sent to the Editorial Board and Panel of Reviewers who have indicated an interest in this area, with reviews ideally being submitted within 1-3 weeks of publication.

Referees are formally invited by MedEdPublish, based on nominations by authors and membership of the Panel of Reviewers, according to expertise, but in addition any member of the review panel can place a review on any article that they have the interest and expertise to review.  Reviewers are asked to declare any competing interests.

While MedEdPublish editors are academics who make editorial decisions, we believe that authors are best placed to identify those in their field who have the expertise needed to review their article.  Although this is not compulsory, we urge authors to nominate reviewers for their article. Appropriate reviewers may include other researchers in the same or a related field and other authors cited in the article.  Authors should NOT nominate as potential reviewers colleagues with whom there has been collaboration or from the same department or research group. 

The editors are not obliged to accept author-nominated reviewers, and may also invite members of the Panel of Reviewers to contribute reviews, based on registered expertise.

The MedEdPublish team will contact the referees nominated by authors.  Authors should not contact the referees directly to reduce the possibility that this could influence the objectivity of their reviews.

All members in the MedEdPublish community are invited to review or comment on published articles. To review an article, log in with your AMEE or MedEdPublish username and password. If you do not have a username or password you should register on the MedEdPublish website to create a login.

Post-publication peer review should be conducted as a constructive discussion, the aim of which is to enhance understanding of the subject and refine future work.
Reviews should:

• Be written in good English;
• Average around 300 words in length;
• Outline both the strengths and the weaknesses of the article;
• Give a flavour of to whom the paper may be of interest.

Critical but constructive feedback is encouraged. Reviewers names are published and will appear immediately. To stimulate discussion and ensure an open and transparent process, authors are encouraged to reply to their reviews and reviewers to engage with any replies from the author. Comments deemed unintelligible, inappropriate or offensive will be removed.

Reviewers are also asked to declare any competing interests. Competing interests may be financial e.g. holding a patent or receiving fees from a company that may lose or gain financially from the publication of the paper, personal, religious, political or other non-financial interests.

Once an article has been reviewed, the reviewer is asked to consider the extent to which they recommend the article by selecting one of the following star-ratings:

*****
I strongly recommend this article as an important contribution to the field that should be read by everyone with an interest in the area.

****
I recommend this article as a useful contribution to the field that should be read by those with an interest in the area.

***
I recommend this article to be read by those working in the field despite having some reservations as noted in my review.

**
I have reservations about this article as noted in my review but it may be of interest to those working in the field.

*
I have serious reservations about this article but aspects may be of limited interest to those working in the particular area.


Your review should justify your decision to recommend or not recommend an article and should offer feedback to the authors.

In commenting and allocating a star-rating, reviewers of an article should take account that in addition to original research, MedEdPublish reports studies that replicate previous work, case studies, opinion pieces and studies with negative findings. The need for replication studies has been recognised in education and the fact that an article confirms results previously reported should not detract from its value and the award of a high star-rating. Similarly, an opinion piece, if the thoughts are valuable and clearly argued, could also attract a high rating. A particular element of an article, such as a useful table or figure or list of references may also merit a positive recommendation to the reader.

By recommending an article you also confirm that you have read the article and feel you have an appropriate level of expertise to review the article.

Unfortunately reviews cannot be edited once they have been submitted.  You can however add a further comment if you wish to correct or clarify any comments made.

No.  To avoid confusion within discussion threads posted reviews may not be removed.

We believe that open reviewing better contributes to the understanding of educational scholarship by both authors and readers.  Diverse views may be expressed, from positive to negative, representing a wide range of perspectives and expertise.  Following the trail of reviewers’ and responses can be interesting and informative, potentially helping all readers to improve their educational scholarship.  

Reviewers may have to defend their comments, again openly, and are more likely to be constructive in any criticisms.  The potential for bias is reduced as reviewers are less likely to be in competition with the authors on similar projects.  Open reviewing may therefore improve the quality of the advice that authors receive.

The aim of MedEdPublish is to create an environment for the promotion of positive and constructive feedback.  If you feel a review is unfair or unrepresentative you have the right to reply by posting a comment.  Any comments that do not meet house rules or are considered to be defamatory or derogatory will be removed by the MedEdPublish Administrator. Any abuse should be reported immediately to [email protected] with a link to the comment, or by accessing the ‘Report Abuse’ link at the bottom of the left side menu.

Authors are asked to nominate at least two potential reviewers up to a maximum of four before publication. Should we be unable to obtain two or more reviews, we may ask authors to nominate additional potential reviewers to achieve this goal.

A star-rating is a guide for future readers of an article, based on the views of reviewers. Once an article has been reviewed, the reviewer is asked to consider the extent to which they recommend the article by selecting one of the following star-ratings:

*****
I strongly recommend this article as an important contribution to the field that should be read by everyone with an interest in the area.

****
I recommend this article as a useful contribution to the field that should be read by those with an interest in the area.

***
I recommend this article to be read by those working in the field despite having some reservations as noted in my review.

**
I have reservations about this article as noted in my review but it may be of interest to those working in the field.

*
I have serious reservations about this article, but aspects may be of limited interest to those working in the particular area.

In commenting and allocating a star-rating, reviewers of an article should take account that in addition to original research, MedEdPublish reports studies that replicate previous work, case studies, opinion pieces and studies with negative findings. The need for replication studies has been recognised in education and the fact that an article confirms results previously reported should not detract from its value and the award of a high star-rating.  Similarly, an opinion piece, if the thoughts are valuable and clearly argued, could also attract a high rating.  A particular element of an article, such as a useful table or figure or list of references may also merit a positive recommendation to the reader. 

MedEdPublish’s model is built on full transparency and is set up to avoid editorial bias. Once an article is published, MedEdPublish Editors no longer have any power to accept or reject the article, and may contribute reviews, but ONLY where they have relevant academic expertise. When acting as a reviewer, an editor's review does not carry any more or less weight than any other member of the Review Panel.

The MedEdPublish Editorial Team monitors reviews, recording details such as the number performed by each Panel member.  Reviews, comments and responses are not reviewed prior to publication, but are read by Editorial Team members with the goal of making the review process an educational experience for the medical education community. 

Themed issues are collections of articles on a particular theme or topic. MedEdPublish no longer publishes themed issues but you can still view our archive of past themed issues.

MedEdPublish no longer publishes quarterly themed issues. However, from time to time we may produce a collection of previously published, themed articles with editorial commentary.

If you are interested in curating a theme, please get in touch with the editors via [email protected] You should include:

• The proposed theme and title.
• A short justification for inclusion of the theme, explaining the expected impact, target readership and timeliness of the proposed theme.
• The list of articles selected for inclusion.
• Names, affiliations, and short CV of the Guest Editor(s).

Suggested themes are evaluated for their timeliness, relevance to the scope and readership of MedEdPublish, feasibility, and overall scientific quality.

To become a Guest Editor you should send a proposal for a theme to [email protected]

To be considered, proposals for themed issues should include:

Suggested themes are evaluated for their timeliness, relevance to the scope and readership of MedEdPublish, feasibility, and overall scientific quality.

MedEdPublish Guest Editors oversee the curation of a themed collection of journal articles and have two main roles:

• To propose a theme for an issue and suggest potential articles for inclusion;
• To prepare a short opening commentary on the theme and another to close the theme.

Guest Editors can work alone or with a small group of colleagues and are invited to suggest an individual with whom they would like to work. Alternatively, Guest Editors may be invited to be involved by the Editorial Board.

Your username is the email address you used to register your AMEE account. If you have changed emails, please login using the address you set up the account with and change your email address in the 'my account' settings. Please do not set up a second account with your new email address as this will create a duplicate record and it may not be possible to retrieve your existing publication history.

If you have not activated your account since the implementation of AMEE's new information management software in August 2020, you will need to use the 'forgot password' button to regenerate a new password.

If you have forgotten the email address associated with your account, please email [email protected] for support.

Please go to the Login/Register page and select the ‘Forgotten password’ button.  You will be prompted to enter your registered email address.  You will then be able to reset your own password. Please note that entering the wrong password three times in a row will temporarily lock your account and it may take up to 48 hours for the lock to be removed.

A ‘Registered Reader’ is someone who has provided their personal contact details to MedEdPublish. In order to review and comment on MedEdPublish articles, or to submit your own article we require you to register an account. Registration is free and you can choose whether or not you wish to receive future correspondence from us..

You can contact the Editorial Office at:
 
MedEdPublish
12 Airlie Place
Dundee
DD1 4HJ
UK

[email protected]

**Please note that due to COVID-19 restrictions our staff are currently homeworking and should be contacted by email wherever possible.