Volunteering to Review for the MDM Journals
Medical Decision Making and MDM Policy and Practice are always interested in identifying new reviewers with appropriate scholarly expertise. We are particularly interested in increasing the diversity of our reviewer pool to include underrepresented groups, institutions, and countries.
CLICK HERE TO COMPLETE THE NEW REVIEWER FORM
The form will ask for your preferred contact information and also request that you identify relevant keywords from two lists: APPLICATION AREAS and DETAILED METHODOLOGY. MDM editors will use these keywords to match your expertise to relevant submissions. If you do not have an existing account with the journals, the MDM editorial office will create a reviewer account for you and send you log in instructions via email.
For trainees interested in reviewing but lacking previous experience as a reviewer: Early stage trainees without review experience are welcome to collaborate on a review with a mentor, provided the handling editor is notified in advance and both the senior reviewer’s and the trainee’s names are provided (e.g., in confidential comments to the editor). Later stage trainees (e.g., fellows) should feel free to sign up as a reviewer (above), but please let the handling editor know if you would like guidance and constructive feedback on your review. Note: it is NOT acceptable for a senior reviewer to ask a trainee to perform a review in their name without (a) disclosing the trainee’s involvement to the journal, (b) actively participating in the review process with the trainee, and (c) taking responsibility for the content of the review.
The MDM journals are known for the quality of the reviews we provide authors, and we value working with junior scholars to create the next generation of outstanding reviewers in our field. We also recruit Editorial Board members from the ranks of our regular, high-quality reviewers.
All reviewers are also encouraged to visit the SAGE Journal Reviewer Gateway for guidance on how to write a review, navigating the review system, and peer review ethics.
Principles for Kinder, Constructive Reviews
The MDM journals place a strong emphasis on providing high quality, constructive peer reviews of submitted manuscripts. Such reviews provide concrete, actionable feedback to authors about their manuscripts. The MDM journals do not tolerate reviews which engage in personal attacks on authors or otherwise make assumptions about authors’ abilities, and we reserve the right to edit or exclude reviews which engage in such offensive conduct.
In the spirit of supporting a kinder form of peer review, we also express agreement with The 10 Commandments of Reviewing: The Promise of a Kinder, Gentler Discipline by Mohan J Dutta, which were published in Health Communication in 2006:
- Approach reviewing as a collaborative task
- Put aside your ego
- Be reflexive
- Understand the paradigms
- Understand the limitations of the project
- Do not feel that you need to demonstrate how much you know
- Be specific in your recommendations
- Provide feedback in a timely manner
- Encourage!
- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Conflicts of Interest and Double-Anonymized Review
Both MDM journals use a double-anonymized review of manuscripts, wherein the identities of authors are hidden from reviewers and vice versa. We use this approach to minimize the potential for reviews and/or author responses to be biased by who the person is and/or their affiliations.
However, with a double-anonymized review, it can be more difficult to spot potential conflicts of interest (COI). To manage this problem, we ask all reviewers to contact the editorial office at mdm-journal@umich.edu, if they have any suspicion that a conflict of interest might exist.
MDM defines a conflict of interest as:
- Having the same institutional affiliation as manuscript authors.
- Recent scholarly collaboration with manuscript authors.
- Having a personal, financial, or professional conflict of interest with the manuscript authors or any competing financial demands with the content you are invited to review.
Review Timelines
In an effort to provide our authors with a rapid turnaround time, MDM generally asks that all reviewers return their completed reviews within three weeks. If you are interested in reviewing, but cannot commit to a three week deadline, please contact the editorial office immediately to ask if an extension may be possible.
Continuing Medical Information
Reviewers who provide high quality reviews in a timely fashion (as rated by the handling editors) are eligible to receive Continuing Medical Education (CME) credit hours. Click here for more information.