Peer Review Guidelines


All members in the AMEE MedEdPublish community are invited to peer review articles. To review an article, log in with your AMEE username and password or your 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 paper;
  • Give a flavour of to whom the paper may be of interest.

Critical but constructive feedback is encouraged. Reviewer’s 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.

Declare competing interests

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.

How to submit a review

In order to submit a review you will need to log in with your AMEE or MedEdPublish username or password.  If you are not an AMEE member or have not previously registered on the MEP website please consult our User Guide  to follow the registration process.

Once you have logged into MedEdPublish, go to the paper you wish to review. Once you have opened the paper:

  1. Click on the ‘Reviews’ button to the right of the paper.  This will take you down to the bottom of the paper where you will be able to see any existing reviews for the paper.
  2. Click on the ‘Submit Review’ button. This will open up a text box into which you can type or ‘cut and paste’ your review of the paper. 
  3. Once you have entered your review, check the box to declare that you have no conflicts of interests. Only reviewers with no conflicting interests will be allowed to submit a review.
  4. Rate the paper by clicking on the appropriate star-rating.  The number of stars displayed in blue will indicate your decision.  Guidance on the rating system can be found by clicking the link beneath the stars. Each review must indicate a rating for the paper.
  5. Click on the ‘Submit’ button next to the star ratings to submit your review.
Your review should appear immediately and you will receive a confirmation email to your registered address.  You may also be informed if any replies to your review are received. To decide what activity you are alerted to, go to ‘My Account’, click on the ‘Notification Preferences’ tab,  and scroll down to check the boxes of those options you wish to receive notification of.


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:

★★★★★   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 a paper should take account that MedEdPublish reports, in addition to original research 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 a paper 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, the paper could also attract a high rating.  A particular element of a paper, 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.