Child pages
  • CMEJ work space

Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

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: (meeting tbd)

For information:

  1. Authors often write to me related to their work, especially when they have been accepted and we are working on publication. 
    1. Hello, Dr. D'Eon;
      I have just attended to and uploaded revisions to the manuscript noted above. I am compelled to write you because over 60+ peer reviewed articles, I have never seen such detailed and thoughtful comments and editing from an editor before. Your work on the manuscript was impressive and truly did make this a better contribution.
    2. Thank you so much for your thoughtful review.
    3. It’s been a pleasure. I really appreciate your personal approach to your editorial work....It is pretty rare these days, in my field of xyv education at least, to have an editor state things like “I really like your study and hope it makes a difference” or to include comments in the proofs that are conversational in nature. Most often I feel like a cog in the publication wheel. But you made me feel like we are still people trying to do good research to improve the learning conditions for other people. To me that is a personal approach.

    4. Thank you again very much for your excellent conceptual and copy editing: your attention to detail is much appreciated!
    5. Thank you for the good news and the great comments. They are quite helpful in improving the paper.

    6. This is the revised version with the French abstract. We really like the final product. 

    7. I have satisfied and resolved all editorial suggestions and there were most helpful to improve the paper. Our sincere thanks to you and to all at CMEJ.

  2. Terms I don't like and don't want to use: (consider adding to the list)
    1. non-cognitive (attributes or characteristics): nothing we ask med students to do is non-cognitive; use instead interpersonal or ...
    2. intrinsic (CanMEDS roles): precludes influence through formation, education, and training; use instead non-medical expert roles.
    3. "significant" when they could say meaningful, substantial, important, .... Significant is often confused for the statistical variety!
  3. Ethics approvals for studies: we ensure that the appropriate IRB or REB has been approached and a decision made that allows for the study according to local policies. We do not make independent judgements for ethics approval.
  4. Pre-conference workshop: CCME Friday morning: writing and Reviewing for medical education: The CMEJ Experience;
    1. We will charge and make some money for the CMEJ 10th anniversary celebrations
    2. Consider assisting ...
      1. ...with the planning: this can be largely like the last two years when we offered a 90 minute conference workshop but now with 2 1/2 hours or so we can do more
      2.  ... with the workshop itself: if there are many participants we will need some small group leaders

Agenda Items: Thursday September 13, 930 CST! (In attendance: Marcel, Russell, Jocelyn, Maria, Tim, Carol, Regrets: (Andrea and Joanne tried connecting but WebEx was not cooperating; Doug A and Ayelet called in late - it was a quick meeting but got a personal and fresh summary)  Jennifer, Lloyd, Anne, Doug A, Tina, Anna, Kent, Kalyani, Elizabeth, Doug M, Greg, Mone, Nancy, Tanya, Irene, Albina, Rachel

Meeting summary:

There were no objections to and there was general support for implementing the proposed job description for Section Editors. I will announce that applications are open soon. (smile)

We covered these information items: SSHRC grant application; AFMC Standing Committee on Education approval of and recommendation to their Board of the TOR for a 5 partner Management Board to oversee the CMEJ. Other information items may be read below at your own leisure!

Request: ideas for the next special issue AND taking more submissions (the unassigned pile is getting bigger!) AND if attending CCME 2019 please set aside time for the EAB meeting (during the conference or on Tuesday over lunch as in 2017 and 2018).



  1. For information.
    1. Here is part of the email from an author who short paper was eventually rejected, after a few rounds of revisions. It must have been very disappointing, and I acknowledged that in the email I sent declining the submission.

      "Thank you very much for your email.   We are sorry to hear about the result but we deeply appreciate your comments and suggestions.  We had a detailed discussion and we felt that you raise several valid points.  

      "Specifically the primary concern with the paper appears to be related to the aim of the paper being targeted as an advocacy program and no detail of what the students learned regarding advocacy.  After reading your suggestions, we do agree that it is more appropriate to categorize this as a service learning program as opposed to advocacy.   Since the aim of the paper was actually to perform a program evaluation and provide strategies and lessons for improvement, we may reframe the paper entirely as “evaluation of a service learning program”.  We also do agree that this will involve quite a significant revisions including restructuring the intro and discussion and conclusions entirely.  

      "Before we do that we just wanted to get your opinion on whether reframing the paper this way and resubmitting it in light of a service learning program evaluation would be more acceptable?"

    2. Here's part of another email from an author whose work was eventually accepted and published.

      "It's been a pleasure to collaborate with the Canadian Medical Education Journal, and we thank you for your input.

      "Sincerely, ..."

    3. Another one after inquiring about revisions:

      "... As you may know it took approx 6 months for the paper to be reviewed and thus I hesitate to re-submit as I believe that the sooner this paper can be shared, the better. Based on the Canadian content, and Canadian authors CMEJ would be a great avenue for publication, but we are considering other options...."
    4. And another one after a decline decision:

      "Thanks for your email. Yes, it is disappointing, but I appreciate the time you put into reviewing our paper."

  2. For information and comment: progress on funding, management board, etc.
    1. National partner support; CCME abstracts; AFMC
    2. Management Board progress: AFMC Standing Committee on Education passed the draft TOR for the Management Board (five partner consortium); others are moving along
    3. SSHRC grant for learned journals: Submitted and waiting adjudication (spring); about $85,000 over three years
      1. translations of abstracts; 5 then 6 issues by 2021; 10% growth in 2020 then 2021
  3. EAB meetings
    1. For CCME we asked for scheduled time during the conference; may or may not happen
    2. back-up: Tuesday April , noon working lunch (SET your CALENDARS)
    3. New TOR will require quorum AND a chair (not the Editor); and fixed renewable terms for AEs
  4. Job description for Section Editor: previously circulated. Discussion and decision (if possible) (Copied below for your convenience)
  5. Next Special Issue:
    1. suggestions?
  6. 10th anniversary celebrations events/activities: review and comment
    1. Editors' Picks: best articles of the first decade in several categories.
    2. Reception at CCME 2020 ($$$)
    3. Printed copy of a recent issue for all CCME attendees (SSHRC $$$ needed)
    4. Special Issue for 2020: Canadian Medical Education over the years (or not)
    5. other?
  7. Communicating with authors: for information and discussion
    1. If they take too long to revise we (AEs) need to inquire and then we (me and Jennifer) may need to decline and archive.
    2. As a rule I would prefer that AEs communicate with the authors on this and most other matters.
    3. Larissa can send reminders to reviewers about responding to an invitation or completing a review (while cc'ing the AEs) but I do recommend that AEs communicate with authors on other matters.

Section Editor job description:

Section editor: Term of three years renewable twice more

Roles and responsibilities:

  • Manages review process for all submissions in that section
  • May enlist support from other AEs (with consultation of Editor)
  • May take on submissions in other sections if willing and able (and if needed)
  • Responsible for making and communicating all decisions including decline and accept decisions
  • May delegate making and communicating revision decisions to the designated AE
  • Consultation with Editor (and/or the Managing Editor) available
  • Sends the accepted version to copyediting
  • Reviews page proofs and communicates with copyeditor and author(s)

Application and selection: An AE or other academic who has …

  • Expertise and interest in the academic intellectual practice area
  • Ability to manage the time commitment
  • Previous experience and high quality performance in related work
  • Qualities of conscientiousness, industry, and strength

Volunteer/apply as a Section Editor to Marcel D’Eon, Editor, CMEJ

Agenda May 1, 2018

  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. Below are examples of potential titles:
  5. "Potential Potholes and Evasive Strategies for Using Self-assessments for Program Evaluation"  OR, my favourite (at the moment) ...
  6. "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!
  7. The section or format would be known as "Black Ice" or "Potholes" since people always take short cuts and use nicknames. If this seems like a good idea in principle then of course we welcome other potential names. I like "Black Ice" better but but there may be even more suitable names out there! Contest, maybe? Big prizes?
  8. (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.
  9. 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: "
  10. Recognition for the best article 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. Your thoughts?


    1. Thanks, Marcel. Please kindly see revisions and responses attached. Appreciate your careful eye on many of these comments."
  1. 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.
  2. 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.).
  3. 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














                              Number of Issues







                          Submissions  - total

                                 - peer reviewed

                                  - accepted (%)



20 (96)



7 (39)



24 (67)



17 (38)





                         Acceptance rate (%)

Total submissions / number published







                               Days   …to review

…to publication












                            Registered  …users







Proposed re-wording for the email communicating Major Revisions:


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.





Agenda for May 2, 2017, 1230 Winnipeg:


  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?




(Average per year)




2 each year except one in 2014




- total

- peer reviewed

- accepted (%)




17.6 (64%)




24 (41%)




17 (10%)

Days …to review

 …to publication







Registered users

 Increases every year from 268 to 807




Increases every year from 240 to 636



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.


  • 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:


  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!

















        Total   submissions









        - peer reviewed

        - accepted   (rate)



        12 (100%)



        19 (100%)



        31 (100%)



        19 (86%)



        7   (39%)



        16  (62%)



        8 (30%)

        Days to review








        Days to   publication








        Registered   users








        Registered   readers








  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?


  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)


  • 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


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: