AMEE MedEdPublish Version 2 Launch Editorial
AMEE MedEdPublish was launched two years ago as a new outlet for scholarship in medical education (Hays, 2016). The on-line journal format broke new ground in a context where the proportion of papers submitted to medical education journals achieving publication was falling sharply. All academic jou...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE)
2018-07-01
|
Series: | MedEdPublish |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.mededpublish.org/Manuscripts/1740 |
id |
doaj-82f191f430414343819b173f47354a99 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-82f191f430414343819b173f47354a992020-11-25T01:18:27ZengAssociation for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE)MedEdPublish2312-79962018-07-0173AMEE MedEdPublish Version 2 Launch EditorialRichard Hays0University of TasmaniaAMEE MedEdPublish was launched two years ago as a new outlet for scholarship in medical education (Hays, 2016). The on-line journal format broke new ground in a context where the proportion of papers submitted to medical education journals achieving publication was falling sharply. All academic journals face challenges obtaining sufficient reviews to make sound judgements about the quality of the scholarship. Indeed, a substantial proportion of submitted papers are now rejected prior to reviews being invited. Further, while review processes are becoming increasingly open, concerns remain about the potential for various forms of bias in reviews (Smith, 2006). Authors may be confused with editorial decisions to reject manuscripts, despite positive peer reviews. These potential helpful trails of original submission, reviews, feedback, discussion and revision are generally hidden from the readership. MedEdPublish has taken the approach of conducting initial, ‘light touch’ reviewing by editors, rapid on-line publication and facilitating open, ‘live’ discussion between reviewers, authors and the general readership on the strengths and weaknesses of each paper. Two years after implementation, it is timely to review the initial phase, explain the revised editorial management process and provide information about the software that is being introduced with this issue. https://www.mededpublish.org/Manuscripts/1740AMEE MedEdPublishOpening Editorial |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Richard Hays |
spellingShingle |
Richard Hays AMEE MedEdPublish Version 2 Launch Editorial MedEdPublish AMEE MedEdPublish Opening Editorial |
author_facet |
Richard Hays |
author_sort |
Richard Hays |
title |
AMEE MedEdPublish Version 2 Launch Editorial |
title_short |
AMEE MedEdPublish Version 2 Launch Editorial |
title_full |
AMEE MedEdPublish Version 2 Launch Editorial |
title_fullStr |
AMEE MedEdPublish Version 2 Launch Editorial |
title_full_unstemmed |
AMEE MedEdPublish Version 2 Launch Editorial |
title_sort |
amee mededpublish version 2 launch editorial |
publisher |
Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE) |
series |
MedEdPublish |
issn |
2312-7996 |
publishDate |
2018-07-01 |
description |
AMEE MedEdPublish was launched two years ago as a new outlet for scholarship in medical education (Hays, 2016). The on-line journal format broke new ground in a context where the proportion of papers submitted to medical education journals achieving publication was falling sharply. All academic journals face challenges obtaining sufficient reviews to make sound judgements about the quality of the scholarship. Indeed, a substantial proportion of submitted papers are now rejected prior to reviews being invited. Further, while review processes are becoming increasingly open, concerns remain about the potential for various forms of bias in reviews (Smith, 2006). Authors may be confused with editorial decisions to reject manuscripts, despite positive peer reviews. These potential helpful trails of original submission, reviews, feedback, discussion and revision are generally hidden from the readership.
MedEdPublish has taken the approach of conducting initial, ‘light touch’ reviewing by editors, rapid on-line publication and facilitating open, ‘live’ discussion between reviewers, authors and the general readership on the strengths and weaknesses of each paper. Two years after implementation, it is timely to review the initial phase, explain the revised editorial management process and provide information about the software that is being introduced with this issue.
|
topic |
AMEE MedEdPublish Opening Editorial |
url |
https://www.mededpublish.org/Manuscripts/1740 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT richardhays ameemededpublishversion2launcheditorial |
_version_ |
1725142471596310528 |