Versions Compared

Key

  • 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

  1. Welcome, introductions, order food, visit ...
  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?
  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?
  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.)
  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!
    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: "
    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."
  10. 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?
    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.
  11. 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
  12. General direction of the CMEJ over the last few year: 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.

 

Submission data summary 2010-2017

...

  • 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:

...

  • 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:

...