CME Information and Guidelines for Manuscript Review

The Editors of Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery in conjunction with the Elsevier Office of Continuing Medical Education (EOCME) are pleased to offer an AMA PRA Category 1 CreditsTM credit program for registered physician reviewers ("reviewers") who complete academically rigorous manuscript reviews meeting all necessary requirements. The Editorial Office will track qualifying reviews, and eligible reviewers will receive information regarding how to claim credits at the time that a decision is made on a manuscript. The EOCME is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The objectives and requirements for this learning activity can be found below.

For each satisfactory review completed within the specified time frame, reviewers are eligible to claim 3 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditsTM. Reviewers should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in this activity. Reviewers may claim a maximum of 15 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditsTM per year for manuscript review CME credits.

Objectives of this manuscript review CME learning activity

  1. Evaluate prospective contributions to the medical literature in relation to your understanding of the established evidence base.
  2. Provide constructive feedback to improve the quality, relevance, accuracy, and/or rigor of submitted manuscripts, based on reviewers’ own practice, expertise, and knowledge of related literature.

A general guide to how to review a manuscript can be found here.

Requirements for Reviewer CME credit

To be eligible to earn 3 AMA PRA Category 1 credits for a manuscript review, each reviewer will be required to:

  • Have no significant conflict of interest* related to his/her ability to critique the manuscript. Please complete this online form.
  • Complete the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Review Form within Editorial Manager, based on his/her clinical expertise and knowledge of the relevant literature. You must receive a score of 80 or higher on your pee review report. Specifically, in each review, the reviewer will be required to:
    • Briefly summarize the content of the manuscript;
    • Discuss its strengths, weaknesses and novelty / importance with respect to clinical practice or the literature;
    • Provide comments on each section of the manuscript.
  • Answer the CME Evaluation and Attestation Form questions and copy and paste your answers into the Comments to Editor box within editorial manager. The 5 questions you must answer:

    1. Please indicate whether you wish to claim 3.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits(TM) for this review. (delete one statement, as appropriate): I wish to claim credit/I do not wish to claim credit

    2. I have no significant conflict of interest related to my ability to review this manuscript and have disclosed such on the EOCME COI disclosure form. Yes /No
      If yes, briefly describe:____________

    3. Please rate your ability, in a scale from 1 to 5, to achieve the objectives stated above after completion of your review. (1 = poor and 5 = excellent)
      * Evaluate prospective contributions to the literature_______________
      * Provide constructive feedback to improve quality______________

    4. Please rate, in a scale from 1 to 5, the quality and effectiveness of this review as an educational activity. (1 = poor and 5 = excellent)
      * Will improve my performance on future reviews________________
      * Overall quality and effectiveness of this educational experience_________________

    5. Only Physician peer reviewers are eligible to claim 3.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits via this route. Are you an MD? Yes/No_______

*The ACCME defines a "commercial interest" as any entity producing, marketing, re-selling, or distributing health care goods or services, used on, or consumed by, patients. The ACCME does not consider providers of clinical service directly to patients to be commercial interests. For more information, visit www.accme.org.

How is a peer-review graded as satisfactory and therefore eligible for a CME award?

RATING SYSTEM FOR SCORING PEER-REVIEWS

(Reviews must score 80 or higher to be considered an acceptable review and eligible for CME credit.)

95 Outstanding: Clear review of the manuscript and the study it describes. Comments to the Editor are concise, insightful and accurate. Comments to the authors demonstrate a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and revisions based on these suggestions will significantly improve the manuscript. Detailed remarks were provided.

90 Excellent: Thorough review of the manuscript. Comments to the Editor are thoughtful and accurate. Comments to the authors demonstrate a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Revisions based on most of these suggestions will improve the manuscript. Occasional suggestion unclear or of minor importance.

85 Good: Adequate review of the manuscript. Limited comments to the Editor were provided. Comments to the authors could have been more detailed in defining the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript rather than focusing on minor facets of the manuscript.

80 Helpful: Review provided some suggestions for improvement but missed some key strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript/study. Comments to the Editor are of limited value in aiding in the editorial decision. Comments to the authors minimally assess the manuscript and offer suggestions for revisions to improve the manuscripts.

75 Marginal: Comments to the Editor offer only limited value for evaluation of the manuscript. Comments to the authors are thin and of little help, and at times were too critical or confusing.

70 Unacceptable: Reviewer clearly needs direction. The reviewer provided insufficient comments to explain the recommendation and poor guidance to the author.

Advertisement