- 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.
- Operational Topics
- screening papers
- selecting reviewers
- managing the papers through to publication
- 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.
- more new Associate Editors
- Long Term Direction(s)
- National partnerships (talks April 28; CAME, CAME Foundation, etc.)
- vision(s) for CMEJ
- 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: