Limits...
Recommendations for reviewing a manuscript for the GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung.

Schüttpelz-Brauns K, Stosch C, Matthes J, Himmelbauer M, Herrler A, Bachmann C, Huwendiek S, Huenges B, Kiessling C - GMS Z Med Ausbild (2010)

Bottom Line: The recommendations are based on the results of a workshop in 2007 and on a survey among reviewers of the journal GMS Z Med Ausbild.The present recommendations shall help to increase the quality of the review process and to improve the national and international acceptance of the journal GMS Z Med Ausbild.Additionally, transparency of the review processes will support authors to submit a scientific article of high quality.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Dieter Scheffner Fachzentrum, Assessment-Bereich/Progress Test Medizin, Berlin, Deutschland.

ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper, written by the committee of educational research methodology of the "Society for Medical Education" of the German-speaking countries, will give recommendations for the review process of scientific papers in medical education. The recommendations are based on the results of a workshop in 2007 and on a survey among reviewers of the journal GMS Z Med Ausbild. It reflects on international standards and research in medical education in Germany. The paper describes reviewer's function concerning the journal of GMS Z Med Ausbild and specifies criteria for the review process with regard to the editors and reviewers; it also gives proposals for a feedback to the author. The catalogue of criteria for the reviewers is pictured in a checklist. The present recommendations shall help to increase the quality of the review process and to improve the national and international acceptance of the journal GMS Z Med Ausbild. Additionally, transparency of the review processes will support authors to submit a scientific article of high quality.

No MeSH data available.


Experiences with the frequency of defects in manuscripts and the requirements for a good manuscript in education research
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3140379&req=5

Figure 2: Experiences with the frequency of defects in manuscripts and the requirements for a good manuscript in education research

Mentions: The descriptive statistics of the questionnaire are listed in the following tables. Due to the ordinal level data, Figures 1 (Fig. 1) and 2 (Fig. 2) show medians, and, where applicable, percentiles. The 25% percentile indicates up to which value were the “worst” 25% of the answers. The median (50% percentile) indicates the mean answers and the 75% percentile shows the lowest limit of the 25% best answers.


Recommendations for reviewing a manuscript for the GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung.

Schüttpelz-Brauns K, Stosch C, Matthes J, Himmelbauer M, Herrler A, Bachmann C, Huwendiek S, Huenges B, Kiessling C - GMS Z Med Ausbild (2010)

Experiences with the frequency of defects in manuscripts and the requirements for a good manuscript in education research
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3140379&req=5

Figure 2: Experiences with the frequency of defects in manuscripts and the requirements for a good manuscript in education research
Mentions: The descriptive statistics of the questionnaire are listed in the following tables. Due to the ordinal level data, Figures 1 (Fig. 1) and 2 (Fig. 2) show medians, and, where applicable, percentiles. The 25% percentile indicates up to which value were the “worst” 25% of the answers. The median (50% percentile) indicates the mean answers and the 75% percentile shows the lowest limit of the 25% best answers.

Bottom Line: The recommendations are based on the results of a workshop in 2007 and on a survey among reviewers of the journal GMS Z Med Ausbild.The present recommendations shall help to increase the quality of the review process and to improve the national and international acceptance of the journal GMS Z Med Ausbild.Additionally, transparency of the review processes will support authors to submit a scientific article of high quality.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Dieter Scheffner Fachzentrum, Assessment-Bereich/Progress Test Medizin, Berlin, Deutschland.

ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper, written by the committee of educational research methodology of the "Society for Medical Education" of the German-speaking countries, will give recommendations for the review process of scientific papers in medical education. The recommendations are based on the results of a workshop in 2007 and on a survey among reviewers of the journal GMS Z Med Ausbild. It reflects on international standards and research in medical education in Germany. The paper describes reviewer's function concerning the journal of GMS Z Med Ausbild and specifies criteria for the review process with regard to the editors and reviewers; it also gives proposals for a feedback to the author. The catalogue of criteria for the reviewers is pictured in a checklist. The present recommendations shall help to increase the quality of the review process and to improve the national and international acceptance of the journal GMS Z Med Ausbild. Additionally, transparency of the review processes will support authors to submit a scientific article of high quality.

No MeSH data available.