- Welcome, introductions, order food, visit ...
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.)
- 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!
- 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!"
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.!
- 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."
- 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"
- 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.
- 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.
- Sometimes AEs are busy with other tasks and responsibilities and can't deal with submissions right away.
- 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).
- 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?
- 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.
- Enhancing the reviewer experience:
- Reviewer response after sending a late acknowledgment: "No worry about the delay - its was very kind of you to write at all! Thanks.... "
- Acknowledgements, bcc emails following a decision, prompt responses and a personal touch to the emails
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.