Preparing and Submitting
An Original Publication is a stand-alone teaching or learning module, which includes all the necessary instructions and materials for implementation. Each submission is composed of an Educational Summary Report (ESR; an article with standard structured headings of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion describing the module) plus one or more appendices (all the materials needed for implementation of the module).
Letter to the Editor
Authors may submit a Letter to the Editor in response to a MedEdPORTAL publication as a form of postpublication review. Letters may take any of the following forms: (1) a reasoned critique of the publication, (2) a commentary in favor of the publication, or (3) a clarification of a publication by the same authors. Letters should not include unpublished data and are not considered peer reviewed but will undergo editorial review for appropriateness. The length should not exceed 500 words. Authors interested in submitting a Letter to the Editor should contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
All submissions must follow the MedEdPORTAL Submission Standards. Potential authors should carefully review this checklist before they initiate the submission process.
To be eligible for peer review, all submissions must:
- Have been implemented with target learners,
- Have been evaluated (e.g., met learning objectives, increased knowledge or skills),
- Contain an ESR and all key resources and materials required for implementation by others (appendices), and
- Include evidence that it conforms to the six criteria for scholarship adapted from Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate (Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff, 1997).
This table provides prospective authors with guidance regarding the six criteria for scholarship as adapted from those described in Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate (Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff, 1997). Authors are encouraged to assess their own work using this table. Information based on these criteria must pervade the resource. Reviewers and editors will judge all submissions in light of these criteria. Submissions may be rejected if authors fail to provide sufficient evidence for one or more of the criteria.
The author clearly states the educational objectives of the work.
The author uses prior work (e.g., existing scholarship and personal experience) to inform and develop the work.
The author uses a suitable approach to meet the stated objectives of the work.
The author achieves the goals and contributes to the field in a manner that invites others to use the work.
The author effectively organizes and presents the content of the work.
The author thoughtfully assesses the submission to refine, enhance, or expand the original concept.
Adapted from Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff, Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1997).
Educational Summary Report
The Educational Summary Report (ESR) is a required component of all original publication submissions. The ESR provides a summary of the entire submission, is founded on the standard structured manuscript headings of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion, and serves as a guide for understanding the purpose and use of the resource.
Ais available to help authors prepare a complete ESR. For guidelines on headings, tables, and figures, review the . Authors who do not adequately address each section and comply with style and format requirements in the ESR template risk rejection prior to peer review.
Most submissions should use the standard ESR template, but several submission types have additional or unique requirements based on their pedagogical focus. Special-format ESR templates are available for the following submissions:
Along with the ESR, authors must submit all materials needed for implementation of the educational activity. Once published, all peer-reviewed files will be linked to the ESR as appendices.
Files must be in accessible, commonly used formats (e.g., .doc, .ppt, .mp4, .zip, .html, .xls, .wmv, etc.) and should not require the download and/or installation of other programs. To facilitate the future use of a publication, the appendices should be reasonable in number, and should not exceed a combined file size of 500 MB.
All content found in a MedEdPORTAL submission must be original work by one of the authors or else the authors must obtain written permission from the copyright owner to include nonoriginal materials in the submission. Staff editors review all embedded photos, images, charts, graphs, cartoons, sound files, text, and references to published articles to determine if appropriate copyright permissions have been obtained for any materials not created by the primary author or coauthors.
All written permissions must acknowledge that the embedded materials are intended to be submitted to MedEdPORTAL and will be distributed under the Creative Commons license associated with the publication. For template language to use when requesting permission, please view the . If there are items for which the copyright holders are not known or it will be difficult or impossible to receive the necessary permission, these items must be removed from the submission.
Replacing Copyrighted Materials
If copyrighted items must be removed from a submission, such items can sometimes be replaced with those that reside in open-access digital repositories. Many searchable images featured within these repositories are associated with an author-generated Creative Commons license detailing how the image may be used. Imagery that meets MedEdPORTAL standards and policies is outlined as nonrestrictive and can be found under these specific terms: free and unlimited use, reproduction, and modification. Prior to publication, these Creative Commons license attributions must be cited and affixed to each image featured in the submission.
To facilitate the review of submitted content, the following forms of attribution should be used:
Image* created by authors.
Image* used with permission from [image* creator].
Creative Commons license or public domain
Image* by [creator], made available under [license]/ in the public domain, accessed on [date] from [webpage with image*].
*Image is used as an example, but can be replaced with a more appropriate classification of the content
(e.g., chart, graph, diagram, photo/slide).
Supporting and External Material
Referencing supporting or external resources as a necessary part of a submission without actually including them (e.g., citing a book chapter as a required prereading assignment) is permitted for enduring materials such as published books, journal articles, or other printed content as long as the materials will remain accessible. Such “off-submission” appendices must be referenced by a standard citation. For the purpose of an expedited peer review process, authors are required to provide copies of all external material at the point of submission, designated as “Not for Publication”; however, this material will not be included as part of the final publication.
In order to ensure that all content published by MedEdPORTAL is accessible and unaltered in perpetuity, any submissions created or hosted on a web-based platform must be packaged as an offline file and uploaded at submission for eventual distribution via the MedEdPORTAL site. MedEdPORTAL will not accept links to required content.
All submitting authors must complete the MedEdPORTAL submission form hosted at ScholarOne Manuscripts. There are no fees associated with submission processing and/or publishing. As part of this process, authors must read and acknowledge the MedEdPORTAL Submission Agreement.
All submissions are screened by MedEdPORTAL staff to ensure they meet minimal scholarship requirements outlined in the Submission Standards, Scholarly Criteria, Educational Summary Report, and Appendices sections above. If a submission does not meet these requirements and standards, staff may return it to the authors for revision. Authors are encouraged to rectify all screening concerns as soon as possible to avoid delays in processing.
All submissions that successfully clear the screening process next enter the MedEdPORTAL peer review process. The submission is assigned to an associate editor, who invites at least two expert reviewers to consider the submission. The reviewers may recommend one of the following publication decisions: Accept, Revisions Required, or Reject.
Informed by the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, the associate editor writes his/her own editorial recommendation and submits it, along with the peer reviewers’ statements, to the editor-in-chief.
The editor-in-chief evaluates the submitted reviews and makes the final publication decision. A formal decision email that includes comments and recommendations from the reviewers is sent to the primary author regarding the publication decision.
If the submission is accepted for publication, MedEdPORTAL staff prepare the resource for final publication. This process involves copyediting and formatting the ESR and transferring all submission details and the peer-reviewed appendices from ScholarOne to the MedEdPORTAL site.
As an online journal, MedEdPORTAL publishes on a continuous basis. Authors receive a notification when their publication goes live on the MedEdPORTAL website, where it will be searchable and downloadable.
Open Access and Creative Commons Licensing
All MedEdPORTAL publications are available to download without cost or requiring login, and authors retain ownership and copyright of their materials. Each publication is associated with an author-chosen Creative Commons license, which is a legal agreement that governs how the materials in the publication can be used and redistributed by others.
Authorship is based on the following criteria, quoted from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Web site:
Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
Final approval of the version to be published; AND
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Contributors who do not meet all four of the above criteria must not be listed as authors, but their contributions can be recognized in an acknowledgment within the ESR.
It is important that the corresponding author complete the submission form in ScholarOne. Accepted publications will include the email address of the corresponding author.
All authors must fill out an ICMJE Disclosure Form to report any Funding/Support or Conflict of Interest.
Conflict of Interest
Authors are required to declare in the MedEdPORTAL submission form all potential conflicts of interest—financial, personal, or other—that may affect the information, materials, data collection, or interpretation presented in the submission (i.e., the Educational Summary Report, ESR, and/or the appendices). A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest may be influenced by secondary interests. Conflicts of interest at the time of submission will be disclosed to peer reviewers and associate editors and adjudicated by the editor-in-chief, and if the submission is accepted, will be publicly disclosed in the ESR.
Reviewers and editors are required to declare any and all potential conflicts of interest. If an author of a manuscript under consideration has a potential conflict of interest with the editor-in-chief, decisions regarding that manuscript will be made by the senior deputy editor or an associate editor.
An editorial board is appointed by the editor-in-chief to provide guidance and advice to the editor-in-chief regarding journal content and editorial focus. Each member of the MedEdPORTAL Editorial Board is expected to (1) present unbiased, independent, and professional advice to the editor-in-chief, (2) maintain confidentiality about editorial board activities and discussion, and (3) sign a disclosure form to affirm that he or she has read, understands, and agrees to abide by the conflict of interest policy and to disclose any known conflicts or to state that no conflicts exist at the time. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editor-in-chief who will determine how to manage, reduce, or eliminate the conflict.
It is the author's responsibility to provide evidence of ethical approval for research activities involving human subjects. Details about the approving committee (e.g., institutional review board) and responsible institution should be included in the Methods section of the Educational Summary Report (ESR). Please note that at many U.S. institutions, a decision of “exempt” must be made by an institutional review board or a designated independent reviewer, but may not be made by the investigator. Author agrees to make all such formal documentation available upon request. Authors who do not have access to a formal ethical approval process have the responsibility to ensure that studies have been conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/) and must provide information in the ESR to this effect. Similarly, authors should follow institutional and federal guidelines, including those set forth by the American Veterinary Medical Association, to ensure the appropriate care and use of laboratory animals.
MedEdPORTAL respects patient privacy and discourages the use of any identifying information in the submission unless scientifically necessary. If the submission includes any identifying patient or individual information, including images, informed consent must be obtained and documented, ideally by using the.
Authors must disclose any support that aided the development and promotion of materials submitted to MedEdPORTAL. This includes both commercial and noncommercial support.
Plagiarism and Misconduct
Plagiarism occurs when authors use words, concepts, images, or other intellectual property not belonging to them and without attribution or permission, and/or reuse significant portions of their own previously published work (i.e., self-plagiarism).
The AAMC will address all instances of misconduct on a case-by-case basis and take appropriate remedial action.
MedEdPORTAL is part of Similarity Check, a multipublisher mechanism to screen published and submitted content for originality. This initiative provides the necessary tools to ensure that potential misconduct is identified at an early stage in the process—ideally, before publication. The iThenticate system made available to Similarity Check members has been designed specifically to identify the two main categories of misconduct: plagiarism and redundant or duplicate publication. Before a MedEdPORTAL submission is considered for editorial review, the submission’s ESR is scanned by iThenticate and compared with other articles in the Similarity Check database.
MedEdPORTAL will only consider original work that has not been previously published. At submission, authors must disclose any prior dissemination of the content in print or electronic format.
The following forms of posting are not deemed by MedEdPORTAL to constitute prior publication and will not necessarily disqualify a submission.
- Author’s personal website or blog
- Employer’s or institution’s website or intranet
- Presentation at a conference
- Preprint server
During the time that a submitted resource is undergoing MedEdPORTAL peer review, it must not be submitted for publication at another peer-reviewed venue.
Submissions Related to Prior Publications
While MedEdPORTAL will not consider previously published works, there are some instances where curricular materials related to prior publications (e.g., videos, workshop materials, assessment tools) may be submitted as stand-alone resources, as long as all of the following conditions are met:
- The resources submitted to MedEdPORTAL must be original and must not have been included in the prior publication (e.g., as an appendix or a supplemental file).
- The ESR must differ from the prior publication in wording and essence. The ESR must reference the prior publication but be free of plagiarism (including self-plagiarism). If previously published evaluation data are referenced, the synthesis of the evaluation results must be distinguishable from that in the prior publication.
- The MedEdPORTAL submission must represent a meaningful and additive contribution beyond that of the prior publication.
The editor-in-chief will make the final determination whether or not a submission related to a prior publication merits consideration as a separate scholarly work.
Authors intending to submit multiple modules as separate submissions in a series, or modules that together compose a larger curriculum, should take caution in their submission preparation. Authors may prepare multiple submissions as a series only if all of the following criteria are met:
- The module functions completely independent of the larger curriculum or series of modules,
- The module has been individually evaluated, and
- The ESR for the module contains original content primarily describing the included activity, with only secondary mention of the larger curriculum.
Recognizing that the ESR’s Methods section may contain some instructions common to other modules in the series, all other sections in the ESR should have original content specific to the module; simple paraphrasing is insufficient to distinguish the ESR of one module from another. If the Abstract, Educational Objectives, Introduction, Results, and Discussion could apply equally to another module, then all modules in the curriculum should be combined as a single submission. Acceptance of one module does not affect the likelihood that a subsequent module will be accepted.
Peer Review Principles
Reviewers are asked to keep the following information confidential while a submission is under review:
- The name of the author(s) and affiliated institution(s).
- The title and specific nature of the material.
Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.
MedEdPORTAL employs a single-blind review process. While the identity of the author is available to the reviewers, the identities of the reviewers are not available to the author.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose to the editor-in-chief whether any conflicts of interest exist that could bias their opinion. Simply knowing one of the authors or having casual knowledge of the submitted resource does not necessarily mean a conflict of interest exists.
Examples of where a conflict of interest does exist include:
- Any situation where the reviewer could gain personally or financially as a result of reviewing the submission.
- A close collaboration or competition with one of the authors.
- Review of the submission would benefit a particular product, program, or resource related to the reviewer.
- Any situation that could limit an objective review of any submission.
Appealing a Publication Decision
Only editorial decisions of rejection may be appealed. The primary author may appeal a rejection decision for the following reasons:
- Compelling evidence of bias.
- Compelling evidence of a conflict of interest.
- Significant factual error(s) or administrative process error(s) made by one or more of the reviewers or editors that had a substantial negative impact on the outcome of the review. Appeals solely on the basis of differences of opinion are not likely to be granted.
The primary author must notify the MedEdPORTAL editor-in-chief at email@example.com within 10 calendar days from the date of the rejection decision. The appeal must provide evidence to support the author’s argument that the rejection decision was primarily and directly the result of one or more of the above reasons.
Correcting a Publication Error
Rarely, an error may be discovered postproduction that impacts the nature of the publication or interpretation of its results. In such an instance, the publication will be corrected, and the change will be annotated by an erratum.Back to Top