IMPORTANT INFORMATION Wiki was upgraded to version 6.8.1. If you notice any post upgrade issues please contact wiki_support@usask.ca

Child pages
  • CMEJ work space
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This is the home of the CMEJ work space.

Brief action item: For a more professional look on the web site under Editorial Team, could you check your profile affiliation and ensure it is only listed as your university or institution as in "University of Saskatchewan" or "University of Calgary" or whatever? This is what shows up automatically on our website. Thanks!  (smile)

Potential Agenda Items

  1. Welcome, introductions, order food, visit ... (Marcel, Jocelyn, Tina, Tim, Andrea, Doug, Maria, Ayelet, Carol), 
  2. Report to the CAME AGM (click here) and summary of the meeting Friday April 27 to form an official national management board: questions, concerns, comments? The reps of the five CCME partners seemed very supportive of forming a consortium similar to and tied to CCME to govern the CMEJ. They also seemed optimistic that they each could find funds to support the CMEJ this year and then more formally in the future. They appointed Marcel Editor for five years effective January 1, 2018.
  3. Agreement in principle to proceed with further development: Recognition for the best article(s) for a particular year: Several articles can be recognized in different categories with honourable mentions if deserved. The announcement can point out the commendable features of each and be made at the CCME CAME awards luncheon as well as published in the conference program. This would bring more publicity for specific articles, higher profile for the CMEJ generally; these are both good ways to bump up readership and authorship etc. Tina has circulated a suggestion that ties in our 10th year celebrations and her grad class. Your thoughts and ideas? Other ideas for marking our 10th year?   There was general agreement that this would be a good idea and a few suggestions were mentioned. Tina, Ayelet and Marcel formed a sub-committee after the EB meeting. Retreating to a nearby French pastry shop they hammered out the details of a process for your consideration.

    a)      Editors’ Picks: we can together select the articles we want to honour.

    b)      Let’s begin with the Articles of the Decade to help celebrate the 10th anniversary of the journal. Awards to be made at CCME 2020. Thereafter we can go every year or …….

    c)      Section top picks: best lit review/background; best methods (separate honours for qualitative and quantitative); best discussion; most impact; overall top article of the decade. Section top picks must not have an unacceptable (or embarrassing) section.

  4. Agreement in principle to proceed with further development: New section/format: like 12 Tips but with a new name and twist; a different type of review article. Perhaps this format would highlight the common misuses or misrepresentations of important med ed concepts and principles along with a few evidence based ideas on what to do differently. 12 TIPS emphasizes the right things to do while this format would review and explain what is being done wrong and why - then with tips to fix the broken not so evidence based practices. A potential title: "Black Ice: 10 Ways to get a Grip on Self-assessments for Program Evaluation" or "Black Ice: 10 Ways to get a Grip on Rating Content. The possibilities are endless! (Thanks to Jocelyn Lockyer for suggesting the initial idea.)   There was general agreement that such a review article section would be a good idea. There was some discussion of the wisdom of including a critique of practice and/or theory as part of the section. This will take some further study and deliberation to finalize. If you are willing and able to work with Marcel to create an actual proposal let him know.
  5. FYI: Frequently, even after the second or third request for revisions (and maybe especially) I receive email messages like this one. I want you to know how authors respond to us and of course I also want to share the joy!   Here’s a new message that just came in early May: “Thank you again for reviewing our manuscript, “xyz”. We have found all of the suggestions helpful in improving the clarity, flow, and style of our manuscript, particularly the re-ordering of the two paragraphs and recommendations for rewording. As a result, in this revision, we have accepted all suggestions and made a few additional minor stylistic changes via track changes.”
    1. Author A: "Hi Dr. D'Eon, We appreciate your dedication to our work and for reviewing our research once again. We have re-evaluated the entire article and submitted the changes made. Thank you again and we look forward to hearing from you!"
    2. Me writing to a different Author (B): "Here are the draft page proofs so we can publish your article. I'm a compulsive perfectionist as an editor (but not so in other areas of life) so forgive me for suggesting yet more very minor changes!" Author B: "Well I am pleased that you are compulsive in this area of work! Thank you for that.!

    3. Author C responding to suggestions at the copyediting stage: "Thanks, Marcel. Please kindly see revisions and responses attached. Appreciate your careful eye on many of these comments."
  6. Enhancing the author experience: speeding up the review process.
    Here is an exchange between me and an author, a common event at the CMEJ:

    The author's email message: "I was wondering if you could provide an update on this review which was submitted in August 2017.  If there is anything we can do on this end, we would be happy to assist! Thanks!"

    My response (quite typical): "Yes, it has been far too long. I'm sorry this has dragged on. I have one review complete and am waiting for one more before making a decision.

    "Here at the CMEJ we have been unable to keep up with the number of submissions that we have received. In 2016 we had over 170, 5 times the average of our first four years. We are on pace to receive about 200 this year. We have been attending to this challenge and continue to consider ways that we can reduce our waiting list and speed up our processes. Thanks for your patience."

    Then the author's response to my reply: "Not a problem!  As I always say a good problem to have.  Means great success for your journal.  I’m glad it wasn’t lost.  Thx again"


    1. We always have articles (10-15) waiting for an AE. Sometimes the wait is many weeks and even a couple of months. This is before an AE gets it.
    2. We have trouble finding reviewers and then some don't respond - ever - and those who do sometimes don't complete on time and require several reminders. Sometimes additional reviewers need to be selected and invited.
    3. Sometimes AEs are busy with other tasks and responsibilities and can't deal with submissions right away.
    4. To maintain the status quo (4 issues per year and about 90 days to wait for a decision then another 90 for publication and with many waiting to be assigned to an AE) we need AEs to take a new assignment about every other month and to shepherd about 5 submissions to terminal decisions (accept or decline).
    5. Can we step that up a bit and especially make an effort to clear out those that are waiting unassigned? Would it be possible to take a new assignment almost every month for the next year to dig ourselves out of this backlog?  YES! There was general support for a one-time request of AEs to take an additional submission to empty the “unassigned” bin. Please expect a request soon. I know Jennifer is eager to shorten the wait and speed up the review process.
    6. Rating the reviews helps in future selections, allows me to personally acknowledge high quality reviewers, helps identify potential new AEs, and will help cull the reviewer pool over time.
  7. Enhancing the reviewer experience:
    1. Reviewer response after sending a late acknowledgment: "No worry about the delay - its was very kind of you to write at all! Thanks.... "
    2. Acknowledgements, bcc emails following a decision, prompt responses and a personal touch to the emails.
    3. Rating reviews: Some people thought that when rating reviews we should include time to complete and responsiveness. No, please just rate the reviews as we have other ways of gathering supplementary data (time to review, reminders, etc.).
  8. General direction of the CMEJ over the last few years: a chance for a candid discussion of where the CMEJ is headed. This agenda item will be led by Jocelyn Lockyer while Marcel steps out. After a brief period during which the EB deliberated on whether to discuss this topic with or without Marcel he was invited to join the discussion.

    1. Ideas such as logo, naming contest (perhaps too much confusion with CMAJ) with vote on website, name/logo, reception for CMEJ at CCME and schedule time during the conference for the EB meeting.

    2. Marcel mentioned that he is acting as the AE for over 10 submissions (some retirements and wanting/needing to clear out the waiting list) and now better understands the current processes. He suggested, and it was met with widespread approval, that our support and reminder system be modified in this way:

      i)        Automatic reminder for reviewer to accept of decline invitation (same)

      ii)      If needed after a few more days Larissa remind the reviewer directly AND CC the AE. (new)

      iii)    Automatic reminder the day after the review deadline (same)

      iv)    If needed after a few more days Larissa remind the reviewer directly AND CC the AE. (new)

      v)      In both situations, if there is no further action, Larissa will remind the AEs directly to attend to the (delinquent) reviewers. If the AE takes no action in a few days she will let me know and I will contact the AE myself to help move the process forward.

 

Submission data summary 2010-2017

 

CMEJ Submission Data 2010-2017

 

 

Average

2010-13

 

2014

 

2015

 

2016

 

2017

 

                              Number of Issues

2

1

2

3

4

 

                          Submissions  - total

                                 - peer reviewed

                                  - accepted (%)

25

21

20 (96)

36

18

7 (39)

59

36

24 (67)

172

45

17 (38)

159

52

18(35)

 

                         Acceptance rate (%)

Total submissions / number published

80

19

41

10

11

 

                               Days   …to review

…to publication

214

279

210

294

131

306

83

160

78

92

 
 

                            Registered  …users

268-680

807

989

1271

1423

 


Proposed re-wording for the email communicating Major Revisions:

JANUARY 15, 2018: (Happy Martin Luther King Day)

We have reached a decision regarding your submission to {$journalTitle}, "{$articleTitle}".

Our decision is: Major Revisions.

Unfortunately at this time we are unable to publish your paper in its current form. Together with our independent reviewers, we have identified several major issues ...

Option 1

... which we believe are correctable. With the completion of these revisions we do not guarantee that your paper will be accepted for publication by the CMEJ. It is quite likely that we will ask for further revisions (usually minor but possibly major) or we may accept or even decline your paper.

Option 2

... that need to be addressed before we will consider your manuscript for publication. With the completion of these revisions we do not guarantee that your paper will be accepted for publication by the CMEJ. It is quite likely that we will ask for further revisions (usually minor but possibly major) or we may accept or even decline your paper.

Should you decide to proceed with a substantial revision of you paper we expect you will carefully address our critiques and consider our suggestions. In revising your manuscript, please use "Track Changes" and comments. If needed use a separate document to explain any decisions that could not be suitably explained with a comment in the file. Please submit your revised manuscript within four (4) months or it will be archived and you will need to start a new submission. To upload your revised submission to the CMEJ site, log in and "Upload Author Version" on the Review page under Editor Decision.

Thank you for submitting your work to the CMEJ. Feel free to contact us if you have any questions.



Our decision is: Major Revisions. Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the CMEJ.

Version 1:  We are unable to publish it in its current state. Together with the independent reviewers we have identified several issues that need to be addressed before we will consider your manuscript for publication.

Version 2: While we cannot publish your paper in its current form, together with the independent reviewers, we have identified major issues that we believe you will be able to address

Version 3: We cannot publish your paper in its current form due to several major issues that we, together with the independent reviewers, have identified. We nonetheless believe these issues are correctable.

 

The rest of the email:

Should you decide to proceed with a substantial revision we expect you will carefully address our critiques and consider our suggestions. With the completion of these revisions we are not guaranteeing that your paper will be accepted for publication by the CMEJ. It is quite likely that we will ask for further revisions (usually minor but possibly major) or we may accept or decline your paper.

In revising your manuscript, please use "Track Changes" and comments . If needed use a separate document to explain any decisions that could not be suitably explained with a comment in the file. Please submit your revised manuscript within four (4) months or it will be archived and you will need to start a new submission. To upload your revised submission to the CMEJ site, log in and "Upload Author Version" on the Review page under Editor Decision.

Feel free to contact us if you have any questions.


Notes for the meeting Tuesday December 19, 900-1030 CST:

Participants: Andrea, Anne, Ayelet, Carol, Doug Archibald, Greg, Jocelyn, Lloyd, Maria, Tanya, Valerie, and Marcel and Jennifer

  1. Voice in text: active first person or passive? I like the active voice but want to hear some other views with rationale(s). 
    1. We approved this policy change. Jennifer and I will amend the author guidelines and gradually implement this new policy.
  2. Plagiarism software? Should we investigate to check submissions as they arrive? iThenticate costs about $50/submission and we send about 30/year to our AEs (about $1500/yr)
    1. Questions were raised about the frequency that we might receive submissions with plagiarism. We will investigate what other journals experience.
    2. There did not seem to be strong support to immediately implement screening immediately. Marcel will place this item on the next proposed budget for consideration by the management board.
  3. Editorial practices and processes: who communicates with whom and why; how much support, mentoring, and editorial suggestions should we provide to authors.
    1. We collaborate on all decisions. Marcel communicates the terminal decisions (accept, decline). AEs communicate revisions.
    2. We had a robust discussion of several issues the main one being how much time and effort AEs should put into supporting author groups and submissions.
    3. We did note that AEs would never qualify as authors even if the original author group wanted to include them. If it were possible to include an AE as an author -bu t it is not - it would present a clear conflict of interest.
    4. My own view on extending extensive support to author groups: if the article is essentially sound and can make an important contribution to med ed and the CMEJ in particular then an AE may invest the time and effort they feel they have available to make it the best article possible. I will not discourage any AE from going above and beyond the normal expectations and commitments for AEs in working with a particular author group. But I will not expect such a high level of involvement and work from everyone or all the time from those who occasionally do. While commendable it is not possible to deliver this level of service and mentorship to every submission and we all need to be mindful of balance (for ourselves and for the CMEJ which "boasts" a long waiting list of articles seeking AEs!).
    5. is it acceptable for our Associate Editors to submit to the CMEJ? (It doesn't happen often, especially not as 1st author). Short answer: YES.
    6. Major revision email: some journals make it very clear it has NOT been accepted, but if you'd like to take the comments under consideration, please feel free to submit at a later date. "This paper is not acceptable in its current form.  Here is some advice from some smart people in case you'd like to make it better...". Jennifer and I will review and modify the template.
    7. Some journals require a signed statement for permission to acknowledge someone. Jennifer and I will work on this as time permits.
  4. CCME  in Halifax in 2018
    1. workshop for reviewers was accepted. Doug and I will be leading it. Please come by in case we need support (and are overwhelmed by participants)
    2. Editorial Board meeting at CCME (Tuesday after the last plenary)
    3. Should we have an issue where we publish the CCME abstracts?
      1. YES. I will continue to pursue this with the AFMC and partners of the CCME.
    4. Should the registration page for CCME also have registration info for the CMEJ, especially if the publish the abstracts?
      1. YES. I will continue to pursue this with the AFMC and partners of the CCME.
  5. There was no objection to undertaking a study on author (and maybe eventually one for reviewers) satisfaction with feedback related to
    1. the decision (revisions, decline, accept)
    2. future plans for the submission, and
    3. career participation and interest in medical education scholarship
  6. Review of the reviewers has been completed: 25 reviewers updated their profiles (for ease of selection) and 132 reviewers were removed.
    1. We began with those who have not yet reviewed for us or those who did not have a profile. If they responded to our email prompt we kept them on the list. If not we removed them as Reviewers, not as users (yet).
  7. Increasing readership, registered readers, distribution channels, etc. Ideas and action? Aim from the current 1300 to over 10,000 by next year! BHAG!!
    1. As I have done, I suggested people ask their Postgrad Deans to push the CMEJ table of contents out to program directors, research coordinators, and admin who can then send it all or selected article to specific individuals.
  8. NEW BUSINESS: Indexing in MedLine and impact factors. Thanks, Tanya, for bringing this up.
    1. Our second application to MedLine was declined. They noted we still have an Interim Editor and the one issue in 2014 is still an issue! They wrote that they feel the CMEJ is not stable enough. They also noted that our acceptance rate is too high (reported at 50%).
    2. Our steering committee is aware of the concern about still having an interim editor and will be meeting so primarily to deal with this situation.
    3. We did not receive much direction on how to report our acceptance rate. The platform we use calculates the rate using the denominator from the number of submissions sent to AEs, not the total number of submissions. That rate is really the acceptance/rejection rate as a result of the peer review process. If we include all submissions our acceptance rate is closer to 30-40%.
    4. We did have a phone conversation with a person who manages the application process and sits in on all the meetings. The score sheets are not used directly in the decisions. It seems like they use a global (gut) ratings and she said they were thinking about revising their process. We can apply again in January 2020 for consideration at their spring 2020 meeting.
    5. Tanya offered to support the application process by reviewing our submission. Other AEs also expressed a willingness to engage in this to ensure that we are accepted at our next opportunity.

THANKS TO ALL WHO PARTICIPATED AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS. WHATEVER YOU CELEBRATE AT THIS TIME OF YEAR, CELEBRATE WELL!

 

 

Agenda for May 2, 2017, 1230 Winnipeg:

 

In Attendance at the restaurant: Nancy, Andrea, Valerie, Doug Myhre, Doug Archibald, Joanne, Carol, Tanya, Ayelet, Irene, Tina, Maria, and Marcel

 

Regrets: Ainsley, Greg, Kent, Anne, Rachel, Kalyani, and Jocelyn (Several tried to call in but were unable due to unknown technical issues.)

  1. Mission/vision: policy, applications and practical implications; quality
    1. Some support for “critical” commentary (not open rebellion, at least) and implications for “policy AND practice
  2. Author responses (those accepted are understandably temporarily and non-lethally hyperdopaminic): selected quotes.
    1.  "Again thanks for all your help and support on this. It's been quite a long process, but I think the editorial input from CMEJ has been fantastic and has resulted in what will be a far stronger and more appropriately balanced publication. "
    2. "I particularly appreciated the encouraging comment about wishing to support student submissions.  It is such a major effort for students to submit what is often their first manuscript for publication.  Kindly editorial insights also expand the efforts of our local community of practice to promote a culture of mentorship in health professions education.  Thanks for a job well done." 
  3. Issues in 2017: two down and two to go!; Images; editorials (any volunteers?)
  4. Editorial collaborations
    1. repeated (and repeated) minor revisions
    2. finding a "big deal" after revisions and more than one round of review
    3. breaking bad news, especially after b. above; author teleconferences
    4. Not discussed: AE assignments and expectations:  (these are handled individually based on time and interest)
      1. Our welcome letter (2015) to AEs states they are expected to shepherd one submission to publication each year.

      2. Meeting notes from October 12, 2016 – “b. revised expectations: thanks so much to so many of our AEs who go beyond our minimum expectations; we will manage the flow of submissions on an individual basis; feel free to say "no" but thanks so much for saying "yes" and attending promptly to the reviews and revisions.”

      3. Meeting notes from May 2016 – “better to deal with a submission as soon as it is assigned to you, and communicate with Jennifer if you need a break. That way, when something is assigned, it will be attended to as quickly as possible.”  
         

  5. Suggestions:
    1. Moving to a bilingual journal (there was some agreement that to be truly Canadian we needed to publish in both languages)
      1. Talk of publishing bilingual abstracts (of course this would be costly)
      2. Two AEs noted that they could process French language submissions and that we would need to build up our French language reviewer pool
    2. raising quality of submissions: discussion around quality of reviews will go here! 
      1. Let reviewers know that we are rating the reviews (and why)
      2. Send individual emails to reviewers with high ratings (THANK YOU!) that are official looking (with CMEJ Banner?) and can be used in one's CV
      3. Send email to reviewers who have not reviewed for 18 months or more: ask to remain on the list please update the profile. Give them a few weeks then take them off the list.
      4. We can also ask people who contribute a very GOOD review to write a commentary and/or blog entry.
    3. Not discussed: Changes to the review processes: submission managed by ... (AE name)
    4. Not discussed: increasing impact CMEJ has on policy, practice, community of medical educators (mentoring authors, reviewers)
    5. raising our marketing profile
      1. exposure at CCME, CCME abstracts (some cheering for this idea), and reg'n with CCME reg'n
    6. No discussion, defer to management board: funding: author fees ($25/page)? Centre contributions? CAME Foundation fundraiser? 

Agenda for March 30 2017 meeting (1030 CST):

Dial in instructions: Toll: +1-415-655-0002; Toll free: +1-855-797-9485; Access code: 926229042

Ayelet, Anne, Andrea, Marcel, Nancy, Carol, Doug Myer, Doug A, Kalyani, Jennifer  

  1. More stats on submissions etc. 
  2. Progress on governance and (stable) funding
  3. Images as submissions and for the covers from White Coat Warm (he)Art at CCME and through submissions to the CMEJ directly
    1. statement of meaning, how it was done etc.
  4. Indexing, quality, and building momentum
    1.  for an article you have been shepherding successfully to publication, suggest a prominent scholar to comment or write a companion piece
    2. circulate links to CMEJ articles of interest to colleagues
     
  5. Suggestions for top messages: CAME AGM; Twitter, Blog etc.
  6. CCME workshop format review: (90 min total) (need laptop, tablets, etc.) ask in the
    1. target current reviewers to attend workshop; do they see their reviews? ratings of the reviews?
    2. participants log in or sign-up first (if willing) (5 min)
    3. intro to CMEJ, review process, what to look for (20 min)
    4. reading submissions, brief small group discussion with AE (30-40 min) (assign AE to submissions?)
    5. wrap-up, Q&A, assign reviewers (20-30 min)
    6. Assigned to an article at the end
    7. I don't mind ending early and allowing those who want to stay longer to chat 
  7. Request to join the Editorial Board
    1. former AE from Saudia Arabia, resigned over misunderstanding, not top English language skills or discernment
  8. The mission and vision of the CMEJ (cannot only be linked to a geographic region) needed for MedLine
    1. Prospectus: implications of research: integration of new knowledge to build theory applied to practice and policy
    2. Additional/alternative suggestions
      1. foster and enhance the community of medical education scholars working in Canada
      2. policy, application, and practical implications (click to see foci of other journals) of research in the Canadian context"
     
  9. For CCME Meeting May 2:
    1. editorial collaborations
      1. repeated (and repeated) minor revisions
      2. finding a "big deal" after revisions and more than one round of review
      3. breaking bad news, especially after b. above; author teleconferences
    2. Suggestions:
      1. raising quality of submissions
      2. Changes to the review processes: submission managed by ... (AE name)
      3. increasing impact CMEJ has on policy, practice, community of medical educators
      4. raising our marketing profile
      5. funding: author fees ($25/page)? Centre contributions? CAME Foundation fundraiser?
      6. integrated use of blog, Twitter, etc?

    

 

2010-2014

(Average per year)

2015

2016

Issues

2 each year except one in 2014

2

3

Submissions

- total

- peer reviewed

- accepted (%)

 

27.4

20.4

17.6 (64%)

 

59

36

24 (41%)

 

1721

452

17 (10%)

Days …to review

 …to publication

213.4

131

833

282

306

1604

Registered users

 Increases every year from 268 to 807

989

1271

 …readers

Increases every year from 240 to 636

749

921

1 The total number of submissions in 2016 was almost 3 x that of 2015 and over 6 x the average of the first five years.

2 The number of submissions peer reviewed in 2016 is 25% more than 2015 and over 2 x the average of the first five years

3 The 83 days to review in 2016 is the fastest ever except for 2012 when it was 82 (even though 2016 had over five times the number of submissions). We have also seen a steady and substantial decline starting in 2014.

4 The days to publication in 2016 is over 20% faster than any other year even with the most submissions ever.


CCME Events

  • CAME AGM: 2-3 minutes to highlight our progress and momentum
  • Workshop on reviewing for the CMEJ: Sunday April 30, 1000am.
  • Editorial Board meeting: Tuesday May 2, 1230-230. Restaurant to be determined. BYOCC*
(*Bring Your Own Credit Card)

Responses from our authors and reviewers:

From time to time our authors comment on how valuable and encouraging their interactions with the CMEJ have been. This author has given me permission to share her email comments with you.

Congratulations all around!  Marcel, please thank your reviewers for their supportive and helpful review process.  Their unwavering encouragement for a student submission and plentiful feedback have been much appreciated....

I particularly appreciated the encouraging comment about wishing to support student submissions.  It is such a major effort for students to submit what is often their first manuscript for publication.  Kindly editorial insights also expand the efforts of our local community of practice to promote a culture of mentorship in health professions education.

Thanks for a job well done.

A comment from a reviewer to an AE (used by permission): "Given that this is a PhD candidate, I have been as thorough and supportive as possible in my suggestions. ...   My goal is to support the submitter, as the paper is worthwhile.  I enjoyed reading it once I had edited for clarity and could follow the flow of the arguments.  I leave it to you to decide whether the suggestions are major or minor revisions."

I thought you would want to know!

Guidelines for Comments and Responses: What do you think?

The CMEJ welcomes responses to a pertinent issue or issues found in recent articles, an elaboration of an important discovery, or simply a thought provoking commentary that might generate further discussion and/or research or publications. These must be limited to 500 words with no more than three (3) references and must not include any supporting material such as photos, graphs, or tables, etc.

These short responses and comments may be designated by the author(s) as Letters to the Editor or Commentaries (both of which will be published alongside other articles in the CMEJ) or as a blog post (which, after peer review, can be posted immediately). The Editor of the CMEJ reserves the right to suggest an alternative designation to that provided by the author(s) and will seek the permission of the author(s) for any changes.

Agenda with notes:

October 12 2016, 1000-1115 am

Tina, Greg, Valerie, Jenn, Maria, Marcel, Anne, Doug H, Doug A, Andrea, Nancy, Ainsley, Kent Did we miss anyone? Someone listed here who did not participate? Let us know.

  1. CMEJ Prospectus, national partners, management board, and funding (all good!)
  2. AE workflow and expectations: how do we mange the increased number of submissions (a good problem to have)
    1. issues and suggestions: Reviewers are not prompt to respond or don't respond and then are late; AEs spend lots of time chasing down reviewers looking in conference websites; we do have an automated reviewer reminder system; trainees could do some reviews, paired up with someone senior; ask reviewers to suggest others; and ask authors to suggest reviewers
    2. revised expectations: thanks so much to so many of our AEs who go beyond our minimum expectations; we will mange the flow of submissions on an individual basis; feel free to say "no" but thanks so much for saying "yes" and attending promptly to the reviews and revisions.
    3. rating reviews, please!
    4. discussion and debate about decisions between me and the AEs: bring it on! Thanks so much for all the healthy discussions about the submissions: to save time we could decline based on review of the abstract rather than reading the full article and reviewing; false positives or false negatives? different approach and implications, especially time it takes to process submissions; if you think you might need to act as a supervisor to get this to publication then perhaps we need to decline; will be a longer review process if we provide good feedback even with a decline decision; wonderful to get feedback but it takes time to provide; for now we will monitor the situation and continue to provide some rationale for decline decisions.
    5. Metrics (I was asked how this compares to other journals; I don't know and if I can find out I will let you know)

      1. Notice we doubled total number of submissions twice from 2014 to 2016; days to review are coming down; users and readers are going up!

         

        2010

        2011

        2012

        2013

        2014

        2015

        2016

        Issues

        2

        2

        2

        2

        1

        2

        1

        Total   submissions

        18

        22

        33

        28

        36

        59

        142

        Submissions

        - peer reviewed

        - accepted   (rate)

        12

         

        12 (100%)

        19

         

        19 (100%)

        31

         

        31 (100%)

        22

         

        19 (86%)

        18

         

        7   (39%)

        26

         

        16  (62%)

        27

         

        8 (30%)

        Days to review

        102

        244

        82

        429

        210

        131

        76

        Days to   publication

        204

        224

        291

        397

        294

        224

         

        Registered   users

        268

        385

        537

        680

        807

        989

        1224

        Registered   readers

        240

        332

        438

        544

        636

        749

        895

  3. AE meeting at CCME in person and via phone if possible: Tuesday May 2, 1230-230. Room tbd. YES, we will try!
    1. Potential workshop at CCME (see below) More info later if accepted
    2. 2-3 minutes at CAME AGM to brag about and promote CMEJ
  4. Special issue publication and next special issue
    1. November likely
    2. (Discussion) Next (2017) special issue: DME (decentralized med ed)? There seem to be considerable enthusiasm and offers of help LICs, rural med journal, raise profile of CMEJ and Canada; there is sufficient strength in this field in Canada to have a successful special issue
  5. Regular issue progress
    1. Editorial writing? Any volunteers for the spring? None spoke up but if the spirit moves you let me know!
  6. CCME workshop on reviewing submissions (Volunteers needed) If accepted I will find AEs to help me!
    1. Introductions, an overview of what to look for in a submission, and reasons for revisions and/or decline decisions (20 min)
    2. Participants will sign up as reviewers on the CMEJ web site, a submission will be assigned to each of them to begin a review of the paper (30 min)
      1. Editor and AEs will circulate and provide assistance as needed
    3. Participants will form small groups according to the submission reviewed and compare their observations and critiques (35 min)
      1. Editor and AEs will monitor each group and provide assistance as needed
    4. Final summary and wrap-up (5 min)
  7. Twitter, blogs, CANmededipedia We did not get to this item, sorry. Next meeting!
    1. Twitter account
    2. Blog attached to the CMEJ?
    3. (Future consideration) A series of wiki pages for faculty, residents, and students on important aspects of med ed in Canada?
      1. associated with CMEJ and peer reviewed? Overseen by AEs and EiC?
      2. Other ideas?


May 2016

  1. CMEJ vision/mission and prospectus document – Gained positive response from AEs.  
    1. Twitter/Facebook accounts and/or Editor's blog? Thoughts? – AEs expressed support for Twitter.
    2. Meeting of AEs at CCME (Editorial Board) – Yes, supported. 
    3. Reception for AEs and reviewers at CCME? – Lower priority.
    4. Reviewer workshop at CCME 2017 with me and 1-2 AEs (volunteers?) – Yes, supported.  Choose date ASAP to facilitate attendance in face of competing priorities.
  2. Review and debrief last issue 7(1) – no comments/concerns from AEs.
  3. Processing submissions: timely attention to reviewers and reviews (www.scirev.sc data about journal reject and accept decisions)
    1. Assignment of duties/ part of CV – Finding a spot for this on your CV might help garner Department support for time spent on CMEJ activities.
    2. invite reviewers within two weeks; reviewers two weeks to accept/decline; one week to make a decision. – We are making progress getting to submissions in a more timely manner.  It's better to deal with a submission as soon as it is assigned to you, and communicate with Jennifer if you need a break. That way, when something is assigned, it will be attended to as quickly as possible.
    3. Send reviewers copies of other reviews and decision email(s) – “prepare a BCC copy for reviewers" when you send an Editorial Decision.
    4. Reviewer ratings: new feature; watch for "weeks" too – Discussed.  Please use this feature.
  4. Automated email reminders can be sent to reviewers at two points (while the editor can always email the reviewer directly as well).
    1. If reviewer has not responded to a review request within 4 days.
    2. If reviewer has not submitted a recommendation within 1 day after review's due date.
  5. Decision-making process and standards for publishing
    1. collaboration, dialogue, mentoring, and consistency – Marcel has recruited new AEs: Anne Drover, Nancy Dudek, Ainsley Moore, and Maria Hubinette.  – Are there specific gaps we are looking to fill through recruitment?  Right now, we just need enough people to get the work done. We need reviewers who have expertise in 1-survey methodology, 2-methodology for evaluating curricula, and 3- statistical experts.
    2. Marcel's detailed input with Minor Revisions decision – Refinement to Editorial decision-making process: Marcel will read the submission in more detail if Minor Revisions will be recommended, in order to package his comments with those of reviewers and AEs. He doesn't read 'Major Revisions' thoroughly.
  6. Editorial Board individual photos for web site or wiki – Optional.  Please send to Jennifer.
  7. Update on search for national partners
    1. CAME, CAME Foundation and others
    2. Vision/mission prospectus
  8. Special issue up-date
    1. Associate editors, reviewers, special editor, our first submission, inquiries! – Special Issue is moving forward.  AEs have been recruited for the Special Issue

January 20, 2016

Present: Marcel, Jennifer, Ayelet, Carol, Kalyani, Tanya, Rachel, Valerie, others?

  1. Review and debrief last issue and yearly stats for 2015
  2. Indexing: Medline report, ERIC application, Google Scholar, and next steps
    1. IRB/REB processes under construction; shoulder tapping scholars to publish in CMEJ to pump up profile (but may not work), conference abstracts?
    2. We discussed the weaknesses with IT, and they do not believe there are any software issues to hinder our chances of acceptance
  3. Update on search for national partners
    1. CAME, CAME Foundation and others
    2. report mid-late February, then off to national partners
    3. CMAJ sister journal?
    4. Rachel and Mark Goldschmitdt are working on our behalf on a vision for the CMEJ to take to potential partners
    5. governance: Editorial Board, Management Board
    6. Sister journal to the CMAJ?
    7. Since this group of Associate Editors is acting as a de facto editorial board let's just say that we are so Medline will up our score?
  4. Review process issues:
    1. Papers that have been Resubmitted for Review should go back to the initial Associate Editor, to be sent out for a fresh review if necessary (if it is materially a new paper).
      1. Can this be called “Major Revisions” instead of “Resubmit for Review”? We want options for Major/Minor revisions instead of “Resubmit for Review.”
      2. AEs can ask Marcel for advice if there is any question
    2. New and different section types (i.e. Canadiana); YES!
      1. high quality of writing and argument
    3. AE departures and picking up assignments
  5. Special Issue: Exporting Med Ed (2016) or other for 2017?
    1. Tina and Rob - Global Health conference, medical education, out of the Wilson Centre (Addis Ababa); possible partnering with the conference
    2. how to decide what topic?
      1. assessment; CanMEDS CBME implementation etc., trends and issues in medical education in Canada; overview/review article
      2. editor
    3. Other process questions
      1. issue editor; Editorial/ overview; fast-tracking; dates and timelines;
  6. Survey of authors, reviewers? Overall satisfaction? what worked and what did not?
  7. Brief discussion on standards, consistency. We need to work on this through dialogue and experience.

 

Minutes for Oct 2, 2015, 1000 am CST.

  • Review process (choosing and nagging reviewers etc.)
    • AK does not use the list and enrolls people who might be suitable
    • Reviewer system is a bit hard to do, complicated, cumbersome, most people are used to Manuscript Central.
    • Correspondence should come from the CMEJ site; AG sends rejections and looks like it comes from the Assoc Ed, seems personal with our journal.
    • AE uncomfortable sending declines from personal email, rather than from the journal. Other journals send a form letter from the Chief Editor, with comments from the associate editor that follow. -- Action: Can we make changes to the platform?  Change the form letter to come from the Chief/CMEJ instead of the AE?
    • Reviewers: how do we get the right reviewers? Do we have a data base of people who have skills in the area
    • Marcel will choose 5-6 reviewers per paper, but only invite 2-3 at first as a time-saving mechanism.  -- Action: Jennifer and Marcel to indicate in the reviewer profile who is "active"
    • Reminders for reviewers: with some journals, reviewers receive automatic reminders every 3 days.  One week (or 3 days) after the reviewer accepts, the site automatically reminds them repeated. -- Action: Can we add automatic reminders to review? 
  • Ask for revisions using Track Changes and comments?
    • Hybrid model: Ask authors to Track changes or highlights and submit a cover letter.  -- Action: Jen will update the template for Revisions Required email.
  • Editorial review and further revisions: who does what?
    • Associate Editor communicate with author's?
    • Under what circumstances?
    • Sooner editorial oversight? between reviews submitted and decision that revisions are required? – If the submission has potential for acceptance, should Marcel weigh in prior to requesting revisions from the author? - At other journals, AEs are advisory to the Editor in Chief, so they send their comments to Chief Editor and he communicates to authors. Can this be automated when the AE makes a decision?  Can it go to the Chief Editor instead of the authors?  Then the Chief Editor would communicate to the authors? This would allow the CE to lead the journal content after the AE have approved the methodological content and rigour. --Counterpoint: more than one round of revisions is not unheard of...  -- Action: Jen to check with IT whether we can direct AE decisions to the CE instead of directly to authors. For now AEs will recommend decisions to the Editor and the decision will come from the CMEJ, not specific AEs.
  • Survey and future of CMEJ; national partners; funding; etc. – teleconference on Monday Oct 12. We are at a point where we can approach partners. (AFMC, RCPSC, etc). Marcel would like collaborative engagement with partners to integrate their needs and expectations.
    • impact factors and indexing
  • Time for revisions from authors? Should we be explicit with authors? 10 days, two weeks, end of the month?  --  agreement on 2 months, with extensions offered as requested.  -- Action: Jen will add this to Decision email template. Also, ask if we can we automate a reminder when there's one week left?
    • several months/weeks? if too long ask to re-submit or write for an extension
    • reminders to authors?
  • Specific issues with concepts/conventions etc.
    • didactic: intending to teach
    • assessment/evaluation -- Assessment: refers to observations of student or learner grading. 
        • Evaluation: refers to the system, program Action: We will use this North American convention.
        • Didactic: means intending to teach. There is nothing pejorative. Alternate view: (Teaching done by giving instruction). An interactive sim session would not be appropriate to describe as didactic. 
        • Pedantic: means a lecture, when the instructor jaws on (one way conversation) 

April 21, 2015, 300-400 EDT

We did decide to follow a form of peer support when making the final decision to accept a paper. Associate Editors will send me their thoughts on submissions that have been reviewed and allow me to read the paper myself and then contribute to the decision about accepting or not and under what conditions. Likewise I will send papers I am shepherding to Associate Editors for a second opinion.

Tentative Agenda:
  1. Operational Topics
    1. screening papers
    2. selecting reviewers
    3. managing the papers through to publication
    4. Moving to a higher standard - peer editors reviews. I wonder if it might be possible, before the final decision is make to accept a paper, that the Associate Editors check with me first (and I will check with another editor for papers I manage). This will take more time and energy but will help us come to a better understanding of what standard we want for the CMEJ. Other ideas welcome.
    5. more new Associate Editors
  2. Long Term Direction(s)
    1. National partnerships (talks April 28; CAME, CAME Foundation, etc.)
    2. vision(s) for CMEJ
  3. General questions and comments

October 8, 2014, 1000 CST

In attendance: Marcel. Jennifer, Kalyani, Greg (sorry about the time zone confusion)

Introductions: Kalyani, Greg, Jennifer.

CMEJ rep on CAME Board and CAME reps (?) on Editorial Board. How much will CAME Board want to direct the activities of the CMEJ?

Timelines? Funding should come soon (right after the CAME Foundation approved the partnership). For the Editorial Board and Steering Committee, it will take longer.

Experience with the CPA is that they funded the journal in its entirety. We will have U of S funding for about three years and then may apply for SSHRC funding after that.

We will be the only journal of CAME so they too see advantages in the partnership with the CMEJ.

Associate Editor: Dr. Ashrafi. Canadian context is quite different and a functional understanding of the Canadian system is important. Also, given the changes taking place in CMEJ, we need to wait.

Need more Associate Editors: at this rate we will not get through the current list of submissions for 2 years.

  • We have 8 active editors. (D'Eon, Al Ansari, Cheng, Hecker, Ma, Palacios MacKay, Radu, Premkumar)
  • 12 Unassigned articles in backlog (submitted between July 2013 and September 2014)
  • 33 Archived submissions (submitted between December 2013 and July 2014) CMEJ not accepting submissions since November 2013.)
  • November issue: 11 articles in copyediting stage

Meeting Notes, March 26, 2014, 300-345pm CST

Irene: fairly new; value the "Canadian" and open access peer reviewed; valuable contribution; quality of the work published is variable; want it to be more widely read and used

Tyrone: much needed in Canada; lots of work done by Canadian researchers with a clear Canadian perspective (CanMEDS etc.) we don't have a place for these topics; commentaries etc. can be Canadian; we've been local/Alberta and needs a more national base; bring together people from across Canada to make it a national journal;

Tina: shortage of editors is a serious issue; quality of the published work; more attractive to international authors; quality is not what we would like to see; indexing hasn't moved mostly because I don't have the skills to pursue that and there wasn't anyone to help.

Irene: focus on unique features of CMEJ, how it differs

Marcel: limping along till we get a parent/partner organization

Tyrone: CCME to initiate a discussion; Jocelyn is supportive of this initiative; spoke to CAME, AFMC, CFMC etc. and they did not seem to be interested but they might change.

Tina: leave the Editorial Board for later would be fine; indexing is crucial to attract submissions; it appears that some authors do not submit for this reason; will forward emails to Marcel about the application process; maybe step 1 has expired.

Irene: do we have a back up plan? AFMC?

Tyrone: we approached people, given to Tina and she sends an official invite and gets them into the system with instructions; we need people who are willing and able to work on-line.

Tina: Assoc Editors, activities suspended for a period of time;

Irene: need clear expectations; 1-2 per year is reasonable to see through the process; with some quality assurance as well.

March 3, 2014 (Marcel)

Here is a place where we can begin the conversation about CMEJ and then take it up in person on the phone as soon as we decide on a date and time.

Agenda for the March 26 teleconference.

Here are some suggestions:

  • Check in: let’s see what people are thinking, feeling so far about CMEJ and their involvement
  • From the website: The Canadian Medical Education Journal is an online, open-access peer-reviewed journal exploring new developments and perspectives in the field of medical education from premedical to postgraduate and continuing medical education. It examines the quantitative and qualitative aspects of prominent issues relating to the education, training and maintenance of health care professionals. Furthermore, it provides a forum for discussion specific to the challenges faced by medical education practitioners in Canada and internationally.
  • Long term future** finding a national base and funding support; CAME is the likely culprit!** mission and vision for CMEJ: likely wait till we’ve reorganized hopefully under CAME** Short term U of S funding** SSHRC short term funding application due in June
  • Short term decisions:** more associate editors?** a formal Editorial Board (made up of some/all of the Associate Editors)?** I have had two volunteers come forward to get involved as Associate Editors (MUN and UC) and I could easily recruit one more (U of S) and others from McGill etc. through CAME** next issue and getting some good article through the process
  • No labels