Submissions

Author Guidelines

The Journal publishes articles in English and/or French pertaining to Emergency Medicine from its scientific aspect (research, case studies, clinical articles), administrative (Management and organization of Emergency Medicine), medical-legal and social aspects. It also accepts articles that deal with prevention of emergencies. Although it focuses more on practical issues of emergency medicine, the Journal accepts theoretical, methodological and analytical articles. It is also interested in communications, letters, commentaries and critiques of issues related to emergency.

Authorship Guidelines

Authorship is an explicit way of assigning responsibility and giving credit for intellectual work. The two are linked. Authorship practices should be judged by how honestly they reflect actual contributions to the final product. Authorship is important to the reputation, academic promotion, and grant support of the individuals involved as well as to the strength and reputation of their institution.

 Many institutions, including medical schools and peer-reviewed journals, have established standards for authorship. These standards are similar on basic issues but are changing over time, mainly to take into account the growing proportion of research that is done by teams whose members have highly specialized roles.

In practice, various inducements have fostered authorship practices that fall short of these standards. Junior investigators may believe that including senior colleagues as authors will improve the credibility of their work and its chances of publication, whether or not those colleagues have made substantial intellectual contributions to the work. They may not want to offend their chiefs, who hold substantial power over their employment, research opportunities, and recommendations for jobs and promotion. Senior faculty might wish to be seen as productive researchers even though their other responsibilities prevent them from making direct contributions to their colleagues' work. They may have developed their views of authorship when senior investigators were listed as authors because of their logistic, financial, and administrative support alone.

Disputes sometimes arise about who should be listed as authors of an intellectual product and the order in which they should be listed. When disagreements over authorship arise, they can take a substantial toll on the good will, effectiveness, and reputation of the individuals involved and their academic community. Many such disagreements result from misunderstanding and failed communication among colleagues and might have been prevented by a clear, early understanding of standards for authorship that are shared by the academic community as a whole.

Discussions of authorship in academic medical centers usually concern published reports of original, scientific research. However, the same principles apply to all intellectual products: words or images; in paper or electronic media; whether published or prepared for local use; in scientific disciplines or the humanities; and whether intended for the dissemination of new discoveries and ideas, for published reviews of existing knowledge, or for educational programs.

AUTHORSHIP

1. Everyone who is listed as an author should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution to the work. For example (in the case of a research report) they should have contributed to the conception, design, analysis and/or interpretation of data. Honorary or guest authorship is not acceptable. Acquisition of funding and provision of technical services, patients, or materials, while they may be essential to the work, are not in themselves sufficient contributions to justify authorship.
2. Everyone who has made substantial intellectual contributions to the work should be an author. Everyone who has made other substantial contributions should be acknowledged.
3. When research is done by teams whose members are highly specialized, individual's contributions and responsibility may be limited to specific aspects of the work.
4. All authors should participate in writing the manuscript by reviewing drafts and approving the final version.
5. One author should take primary responsibility for the work as a whole even if he or she does not have an in-depth understanding of every part of the work.
6. This primary author should assure that all authors meet basic standards for authorship and should prepare a concise, written description of their contributions to the work, which has been approved by all authors. This record should remain with the sponsoring department.

Authorship Policy

1. There are three conditions that typically qualify a researcher to be eligible for authorship:
• substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
• drafting or revising the article or contributing critically important intellectual content to the article; and
• Final approval of the version to be published.
2. Any researcher that has satisfied the first and second conditions must be given the opportunity to approve the version to be published and must have the opportunity to be included as an author.
3. All individuals who qualify for authorship should be listed. However, any person can refuse to be an author if he elects to do so.
4. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
5. Multi-center projects should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should each meet all three (3) conditions for authorship given above in A. When submitting a group authored manuscript, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation and should clearly identify all individual authors as well as the group name. Other members of the group may be named in the acknowledgements.
6. Procurement of funding, collection of data or general supervision of the research group in the absence of the above criteria does not alone justify authorship.
7. It is recognized that definitions of authorship differ among disciplines and professional journals, as may standards for “substantial” and “scholarly effort” and the extent to which authors must participate in scholarship and authorship. For example, design/development of research equipment, or collection of a specific data set, may be a substantial scholarly effort in certain disciplines. The expectation of this Policy is that standards and criteria for authorship in an academic discipline will be widely recognized and consistent across that discipline (including within MJEM), and consistent with the appropriate professional association, and/or publication in which the work appears.

Procedure

1. Lead Author
   
   As a practical matter in the case of publications with multiple authors, one author should be designated as the lead author. The lead author assumes overall responsibility for the manuscript and also often serves as the managerial and corresponding author, as well as providing a significant contribution to the research effort. A lead author is not necessarily the principal investigator or project leader or first author in every case. The lead author is responsible for:
   • o Authorship:Including as co-authors all and only those individuals who meet the authorship criteria set forth in this Policy.
   • o Approval:Ensuring that the draft of the manuscript is provided to each individual contributing author for review and consent for authorship. Additionally, the lead author should ensure that all co-authors agree to be designated as such and approve of the manuscript. A journal may have specific requirements governing author review and consent, which must be followed.
   • o Integrity:The lead author is responsible for the integrity of the work as a whole, and ensuring that reasonable care and effort has been taken to determine that all the data are complete, accurate, and reasonably interpreted.

There are occasions when multiple, equal contributions lead to more than one co-contributing lead authors. In cases where there are co-contributing lead authors, all assume the lead author responsibilities.

1. Co-authors

All co-authors of a publication are responsible for:

• o Authorship: By providing consent to authorship to the lead author, co-authors acknowledge that they meet the authorship criteria set forth in this Policy. A co-author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

Approval: By providing consent to authorship to the lead author, co-authors are acknowledging that they have reviewed and approved the manuscript.

• o Integrity: Each co-author is responsible for the content of all appropriate portions of the manuscript, including the integrity of any applicable research.

An individual retains the right to refuse co-authorship of a manuscript if he or she does not satisfy the criteria for authorship. It is recommended that individuals who do not satisfy the criteria for authorship should, in fact, refuse co-authorship of such manuscripts to avoid honorary or guest authorship.

• Acknowledgments

Individuals who may have made some contribution to a publication, but who do not meet the definition of author, such as staff, editorial assistants, case writers, those providing technical assistance or other individuals can provide a valuable contribution to the writing and editing of publications. Since those contributions do not meet the criteria for authorship under this Policy, it is recommended that those individuals be listed in an acknowledgment and/or contributor ship section of the work.

Acknowledgments may also be acceptable and appropriate for administrative relationships, acquisition of funding, collection of data or general supervision of a research group when these alone do not constitute authorship.

1. Unacceptable Authorship

MJEM encourages proper forms of authorship to serve as ideal role models for its students, post-doctoral fellows, trainees, staff and faculty. Accordingly, guest, gift and ghost authorship are inconsistent with the definition of authorship and unacceptable under this Policy.

• o Guest authorship (e., honorary, courtesy or prestige authorship) is granting authorship to an individual who does not meet the definition of author out of appreciation or respect for the individual, or in the belief that expert standing of the guest will increase the likelihood of publication, credibility, or status of the work.
• o Gift authorship is credit, offered from a sense of obligation, tribute, or dependence, within the context of an anticipated benefit, to an individual who has not contributed to the work.
• o Ghost authorship is the failure to identify as an author someone who made substantial contributions (i.e., meeting the definition of authorship) to the research or writing of a manuscript.

1. ORDER OF AUTHORSHIP

Many different ways of determining order of authorship exist across disciplines, research groups, and countries. Examples of authorship policies include descending order of contribution, placing the person who took the lead in writing the manuscript or doing the research first and the most experienced contributor last, and alphabetical or random order. While the significance of a particular order may be understood in a given setting, order of authorship has no generally agreed upon meaning.

As a result, it is not possible to interpret from order of authorship the respective contributions of individual authors. Promotion committees, granting agencies, readers, and others who seek to understand how individual authors have contributed to the work should not read into order of authorship their own meaning, which may not be shared by the authors themselves.

1. The authors should decide the order of authorship together.
2. Authors should specify in their manuscript a description of the contributions of each author and how they have assigned the order in which they are listed so that readers can interpret their roles correctly. 3. The primary author should prepare a concise, written description of how order of authorship was decided.
3. Financial Conflicts of Interest

Authors shall fully disclose, in all manuscripts to journals, grant applications and at professional meetings all relevant financial interests that could be viewed as a potential conflict of interest or as required by MJEM and/or journal. All such financial interests must also be reported internally.

• Violations of this Policy

Knowing, intentional, or reckless violations of this policy may be considered plagiarism and fall under MJEM’s research misconduct policy and, as such, will be referred to the Research Integrity Officer.

Violations of the policy that do not rise to the level of research misconduct may subject the individual to corrective action or other sanctions as deemed appropriate by the Vice President for Research. Disagreements regarding the order of authorship do not, in and of themselves, constitute a violation of this policy or research misconduct.

Authors can submit their original articles and the accompanying references to the editor: New Health Concept B.P. 90.815 Jdeideh- Lebanon or via email. The article should be accompanied by a letter by the author/s that clearly states that joint authors of the article are aware of the application to publish and have agreed to allow free accessing of texts by New Health Concept Edition publication. Please create a separate file (indicating the name of the author) for all the photographs, tables and graphs you would like to be included in the article and send them to the following address: mjem@newhealthconcept.net
All submissions will undergo a preliminary evaluation and an ethical revision by the editorial board to determine whether it will be allowed to appear in the journal. Articles that pass this preliminary evaluation will also be anonymously reviewed by two members of a scientific committee. Once the article has been approved for publication, a biography of 10 lines should be developed.

MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION
Articles are to be submitted in a typewritten format. Paragraphs are double spaced. Font size should be 12. The submitting author should send his contact details with the article such as telephone number or an email address. The original text of the article should be sent without illustrations in its original format (e.g. Microsoft Word). Pages should be numbered. Titles and subtitles of equal importance should be marked identically. Abbreviations should be explained when first encountered in the text. The articles should not exceed 2500 words or not more than 10 pages.
Abstracts and Key Words: Each article should include an abstract In English (and in French for French articles) no longer than 300 words. Keywords (not more than 6 words) and the title of the article should also be presented in both languages.
Text: The author needs to respect the following formatting procedures when submitting the article:

• On the front page: the author's name, affiliations, complete mailing address, telephone number and email address. The names and the affiliations of collaborators should be clearly indicated. Please ensure that this information is only presented on the front page and does not appear on the other pages of the article.
• Bibliographic References need to appear in order of appearance in the text. They must be identified in the text by Arabic numbers in brackets. There should be about 10-30 references. They must conform to presentation norms applied in the scientific editing world (Vancouver style).
• Photographs, figures, graphs and tables: these should be sent in separate files and need to be numbered and marked with the author's name and commentary. They need to be numbered in chronological ordered when they are to be referred to in the text. The term "graph/table/figure/photo number x" should be used in order to avoid confusion with bibliographical references.
• End notes should be listed separately at the end of the text and not at the end of each page.

PS: It is strongly recommended to add photography of the author who can also allow us to communicate his E-mail address.

For research original articles and review articles authors should clearly note the following:

• If the study was approved by a local or international IRB (institutional review board), a government ministry, or a community group.
• The design of a study: a randomized controlled trial or an observational study that includes a control group.
• Discuss attempts to limit bias in the article.
• The design of a review: formal meta-analysis or a systematic review that only includes studies with a control group how the review articles are selected.
• Statistical tests used to analyze the data.

Conflict-of-Interest Statement*

Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). These relationships vary from those with negligible potential to those with great potential to influence judgment, and not all relationships represent true conflict of interest.
The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether ornot an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

Statement of Informed Consent*

Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients' names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication.
Informed consent for this purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should identify Individuals who provide writing assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance. Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning and editors should so note.

Statement of Human and Animal Rights*

When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.

Peer Review Process of MJEM

The peer review process starts once you have submitted your paper to a journal. After submission, your paper will be sent for assessment by independent experts in your field. The reviewers (who also known as referees) are asked to judge the validity, significance, and originality of your work. Below we expand on what is peer review is, and how the peer review works. It is important to fully understand the peer review process, as it will help you know how to make sure that every article you publish, is as good as it can be.

What is peer review?

Peer review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal.

As well as peer review acting as a form of quality control for academic journals, it is a very useful source of feedback for you. The feedback can be used to improve your paper before it is published.

So at its best, peer review is a collaborative process, where authors engage in a dialogue with peers in their field, and receive constructive support to advance their work.

Use the guide below to discover how you can get the most out of the peer review process.

How does peer review work?

When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it is assessed to see if it meets the criteria for submission. If it does, the editorial team will select potential peer reviewers within the field of research to peer-review the manuscript and make recommendations.

There are four main types of peer review used by journals:

Single-blind: the reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report.

Double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript.

Open peer: authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article and the authors’ response to the reviewer.

Transparent peer: the reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report. If the manuscript is accepted, the anonymous reviewer reports are published alongside the article and the authors’ response to the reviewer.

Double-blind is the type of peer review used by MJEM. This journal use at least two reviewers.

Why peer review is important?

Peer review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the manuscript. Peer review is important to uphold the high standards of scholarly communications, and maintain the quality of individual journals. It is also an important support for the researchers who author the papers.

Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the manuscripts they review.  Every journal depends on the hard work of reviewers who are the ones at the forefront of the peer review process. The reviewers are the ones who test and refine each article before publication. Even for very specialist journals, the editor can’t be an expert in the topic of every article submitted. So, the feedback and comments of carefully selected reviewers are an essential guide to inform the editor’s decision on a research paper.

By undergoing peer review, manuscripts should become:

More robust - peer reviewers may point out gaps in a paper that require more explanation or additional experiments.

Easier to read - if parts of your paper are difficult to understand, reviewers can suggest changes.

More useful - peer reviewers also consider the importance of your paper to others in your field.

There are also practical reasons why peer review is beneficial to the author. The peer review process can alert author to any errors in your work, or gaps in the literature you may have overlooked.

Researchers consistently tell us that their final published article is better than the version they submitted before peer review. A MJEM study supports this, finding that most researchers, across all subject areas, rated the contribution of peer review towards improving their article as 8 or above out of 10.

Get to know peer review process

The peer review process can be broadly summarized into 10 steps.

1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is usually via an online system such as Scholar-One Manuscripts. Occasionally, journals may accept submissions by email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The EIC checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

4. EIC Assigns an Associate Editor (AE)

Some journals have Associate Editors who handle the peer review. If they do, they would be assigned at this stage.

5. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is 2, but there is some variation between journals.

6. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

7. Review is Conducted

The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

9. The Decision is Communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.

10. Next Steps

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

How long does peer review take?

Editorial teams work very hard to progress papers through peer review as quickly as possible. But it is important to be aware that this part of the process can take time.

The first stage is for the editor to find suitably qualified expert reviewers who are available. Given the competing demands of research life, nobody can agree to every review request they receive. It’s therefore not uncommon for a paper to go through several cycles of requests before the editor finds reviewers who are both willing and able to accept.

Then, the reviewers who do accept the request, have to find time alongside their own research, teaching, and writing, to give your paper thorough consideration.

Please do keep this in mind if you don’t receive a decision on your paper as quickly as you would like. If you’ve submitted your paper via an online system, then you can use it to track the progress of your paper through peer review. Otherwise, if you need an update on the status of your paper, please get in touch with the editor.

How to respond to reviewer comments?

If the editor asks you to revise your article you will then be given time to make the required changes before resubmitting.

When you receive the reviewers’ comments, try not to take personal offence from any criticism of your article, even though that can be hard.

Some researchers find it helpful to put the reviewer report to one side for a few days after they’ve read it for the first time. Once you’ve had chance to get used to the idea that your article requires further work, you can more easily address the reviewer comments objectively.

Then take time to read through the editor and reviewers’ advice carefully, deciding what changes you will make to your article in response. Taking their points on board will ensure your final article is as robust and impactful as possible.
Please make sure that you address all the reviewer and editor comments in your revisions.
It may be helpful to resubmit your article along with a two-column grid outlining how you’ve revised your manuscript. On one side of the grid list each of the reviewers’ comments and opposite them detail the alterations you’ve made in response. This method can help you to order your thoughts, and clearly demonstrates to the editor and reviewers that you’ve considered all of their feedback.

What if you don’t agree with the reviewers’ comments?

If there’s a review comment that you don’t agree with, it is important that you don’t ignore it. Instead, include an explanation of why you haven’t made that change with your resubmission. The editor can then make an assessment and include your explanation when the amended article is sent back to the reviewers.

You are entitled to defend your position but, when you do, make sure that the tone of your explanation is assertive and persuasive, rather than defensive or aggressive.

If there are any review comments which you don’t understand or don’t know how to respond to, please get in touch with the journal’s editor and ask for their advice.

What if my paper is rejected?

Nobody enjoys having their paper rejected by a journal, but it is a fact of academic life. It happens to almost all researchers at some point in their career. So, it’s important not to let the experience knock you back. Instead, try to use it as a valuable learning opportunity.

Take time to understand why your paper has been rejected

If a journal rejects your manuscript, it may be for one of many reasons. Make sure that you understand why your paper has been rejected so that you can learn from the experience. This is especially important if you are intending to submit the same article to a different journal.

Are there fundamental changes that need to be made before the paper is ready to be published or was this simply a case of submitting to the wrong journal? If you are unsure why your article has been rejected, then please contact the journal’s editor for advice.

Some of the common reasons manuscripts are rejected include:

• The author has submitted their paper to the wrong journal: it doesn’t fit the Aims & Scope or fails to engage with issues addressed by the journal.
• The manuscript is not a true journal article, for instance it is too journalistic or clearly a thesis chapter.
• The manuscript is too long or too short.
• There is poor regard of the journal’s conventions, or for academic writing in general.
• Poor style, grammar, punctuation or English throughout the manuscript. You can use our English language editing service.
• The manuscript does not make any new contribution to the subject.
• The research has not been properly contextualized.
• There is a poor theoretical framework used. There are actionable recommendations to improve your manuscript.
• The manuscript is poorly presented.
• The manuscript is libelous or unethical.
• Why you should become a peer reviewer
• When you’re not in the middle of submitting or revising your own article, you should consider becoming a reviewer yourself.

Why you should become a peer reviewer?

There are many demands on a researcher’s time today and so it is a legitimate question to ask why some of that precious time should be spent reviewing someone else’s work. How does being a reviewer help you in your career? Here are some top ways that you can benefit.

Keep up with the latest thinking:

As a reviewer you get an early view of the exciting new research being done in your field. Not only that, peer review gives you a role in helping to evaluate and improve this new work.

Improve your own writing:

Carefully reviewing articles written by other researchers can give you an insight into how you can make your own better. Unlike when you are reading articles as part of your research, the process of reviewing encourages you to think critically about what makes an article good (or not so good). This could be related to writing style, presentation, or the clarity of explanations.

Boost your career:

While a lot of reviewing is anonymous, there are schemes to recognize the important contribution of reviewers. You can also include your reviewing work on your resumé. Your work as a reviewer will be of interest to appointment or promotion committees who are looking for evidence of service to the profession.

Become part of a journal’s community:

 Many journals act as the center of a network of researchers who are in conversation about key themes and developments in the field. Becoming a reviewer is a great way to get involved with that group. This can give you the opportunity to build new connections for future collaborations. Being a regular reviewer may also be the first step to becoming a member of the journal’s editorial board.

Your research community needs you

Of course, being a reviewer is not just about the benefits it can bring you. The MJEM peer review survey found that these are the top 3 reasons why researchers choose to review:

Playing a part as a member of the academic community: Peer review is the bedrock of academic publishing. The work of reviewers is essential in helping every piece of research to become as good as it can be. By being a reviewer, you will play a vital part in advancing the research area that you care about.

Reciprocating the benefit: Researchers regularly talk about the benefits to their own work from being reviewed by others. Gratitude to the reviewers who have improved your work is a great motivation to make one’s own contribution of service to the community.

Enjoying being able to help improve papers: Reviewing is often anonymous, with only the editor knowing the important contribution you’ve made. However, many reviewers attest that it is work that makes them feel good, knowing that they have been able to support a fellow researcher.

How to be an effective peer reviewer?

Our popular guide to becoming a peer reviewer covers everything you need to know to get started, including:

How to become a peer reviewer

Writing review reports: step-by-step

Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

Reviewer recognition

Read the MJEM reviewer guidelines

Reviewer recognition

Reviewers invest a huge amount of time and expertise in the peer review process. It’s crucial that they feel supported and recognized in their role.  A reviewer’s input to the editorial process is invaluable, and as publishers, we seek to recognize the efforts of reviewers.

The ways reviewers currently receive recognition varies from journal to journal, and can include:

• Being included in a journal’s annual list of reviewers, typically in the year’s first or last issue. This is the most common form of recognition
• Receiving complimentary online access to the journal, or package of journals, for a specific time period
• Getting a letter or certificate of contribution from the journal editor