Submission Preparation ChecklistAs part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
- The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
The author has read the Sections Policy to determine the correct section for the submission
- All co-authors meet the criteria for authorship (as listed on the website) and have been entered into the submission’s metadata in submission step 3. If your submission has more than five authors, please include a written statement of how each author meets the four conditions for authorship as listed on our website. Contributors who do not meet all four conditions can be included in an acknowledgments section at the end of the article.
- The article includes an abstract. If the section does not require an abstract, please provide a 2-3 sentence article summary for reviewers.
- The submission includes a separate ethics approval/exemption letter (Any submissions reporting data from human subjects should have either approval or exemption from their REB).
- If sharing data, authors should include a data accessibility statement in the Results section of their manuscript, including a DOI link and the name of the repository they have used.
- The text includes a Conflict of Interest and Funding statement.
- The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format.
- The text is double-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all text, references, tables, and figure legends are included in one document, with tables and figures following the references.
- The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines. Where available, URLs or DOIs for the references have been provided.
- The text adheres to the CMEJ active voice policy (see Submission guidelines)
These articles will be a primary mode of communication for the journal and may include the results of original research with interesting and pertinent findings or other forms of high quality scholarship touching on topics of importance to the medical education community. Submissions to this section are expected to be framed within a clear theoretical lens both in the methodology and the substance of the study. For example, decisions on which instructional activities were chosen for exploration must be grounded in the education and instructional literature and any findings (expected or especially unexpected) must likewise invoke accepted and relevant theoretical frameworks and explanations. Small scale - though high quality - research occurring at one or two centres only should be submitted as a Brief Report. Survey studies that report the results of an environmental scan or needs assessment should be submitted as a Brief Report if they are subsequently applied to the development of a curricular initiative or produce a set of recommendations for policy makers and/or medical educators.
Original Research must include a statement concerning ethical review by a third party and consent procedures if the study reports data from human subjects. Maximum length is 4,500 words and must be submitted with a 250 word structured abstract.
Reviews, Theoretical Papers, and Meta-Analyses
Submissions to this section include review and meta-analysis manuscripts and should be limited to 4,500 words. They must include a 250 word abstract.
This section includes research reports that may be local or national in scope and high quality program evaluations with clear frameworks and connections to the literature. The CMEJ expects Brief Reports to 1) be situated in the literature with a clear statement of the problem that was investigated, 2) utilize a clear theoretical or evaluation framework, robust study design, and appropriate reporting of the main findings, and 3) contain a conclusion that states how the results contribute to our understanding of the problem. Typically, these studies occur at only one or two sites or include only one or two years of data. Survey studies that report the results of an environmental scan or needs assessment will not be considered unless they are subsequently applied to the development of a curricular initiative or produce a set of recommendations for policy makers and/or medical educators.
Brief Reports must include a statement concerning ethical review by a third party and consent procedures if the study or program evaluation includes human subjects or their information. All Brief Reports should be limited to about 1,500 words and a total of two Tables and/or Figures. Brief Reports should include a ~200-word abstract.
Black ice: ‘x’ ways to get a grip! is a form of review article with practical and feasible advice, pointers, and guidelines for teachers, researchers, and/or leaders in medical education based on program evaluation and evidence from the existing literature on the specific topic. The problem discussed should be a relevant and common problem that will draw a substantial number of our readers. Typically about 1000 words, articles for Black Ice will have two sections: Introduction and “How to …..” Included within the introduction is a summary of some of the misunderstandings, misguided practices, and irregularities in the use or implementation of certain practices (the “black ice”). The rest of the article (How to …) will outline the advice and guidelines (and help people “get a grip”). Both the critique and guidelines should be, as much as possible, based on published examples and/or extensive professional experience and observations. For example, one might imagine this title: Black ice: seven ways to get a grip on planning systematic reviews. In the introduction, the authors would outline some of the ways that teams fail to plan properly or plan improperly (with negative consequences). The rest of the article would then explain those seven pointers and how they attainably address the main concerns expressed in the introduction. For ease of reading and to maintain the purpose and style of Black Ice, authors should include at least five ways to get a grip and limit themselves to two tables and/or figures in total. Black Ice can have up to 10 references.
For an example, see: Zhao R, & D’Eon M. Five ways to get a grip on grouped self-assessments of competence for program evaluation. Can Med Ed J. 2020; 11(4), e90-e96.
Commissioned Scientific Reports
Commissioned Scientific Reports
Articles in this section will be commissioned papers of interest to medical educators that fall within the focus and scope of the CMEJ (See “About” on our home page https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cmej/about) and have not previously been published (but might be available on internal web sites that are not available to the general public). Authors wishing to submit to this section may want to inquire of the editors whether their paper fits.
We will accept heading structures that suit the paper and guide the reader. We will not specify a certain style of headings or structure. However, the citation and reference style must be that of the CMEJ (Vancouver style) along with other guidelines of the CMEJ. Authors should read and follow the Submission Guidelines for Authors found under “Submissions” on our home page (https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cmej/about/submissions).
If there is no Executive Summary already a part of the paper or report, please provide a 200 word Abstract.
You Should Try This
This section includes short descriptions of new initiatives (often student or resident-led). This section is for sharing these good ideas that could (and maybe should) be tried in another setting or center. Submissions to this section must include some preliminary evaluation outcomes, and provide suggestions for next steps. Manuscripts must include a statement concerning ethical review by a third party and consent procedures if the study or program evaluation includes human subjects or their information. All You Should Try This submissions are limited to 500 words, one Table or Figure, and six references. Instead of an abstract, authors are asked to submit an Implication Statement of no more than 100 words describing how and why people might use the innovation in their own setting and what they might get out of it.
We recommend that submissions to YSTT are structured according to an Introduction, Description of the innovation, Outcomes, and Suggestions for next steps. The reviewers are asked to consider the following:
- Does the Implication Statement adequately describe the contribution of the paper, how and why people might use the innovation in their own setting, and what they might get out of it?
- Does the introduction clearly state the purpose of the study and provide appropriate (but brief) background from the existing literature? Do the authors describe the scope of the problem, need for the innovation, and how it is new or unique?
- Do the authors describe why a particular innovation was developed? Did a framework, theory, or principle guide development of the innovation? Is the innovative nature clearly defined? What else would you need to know to try the innovation at your institution?
- Are the metrics used to evaluate the innovation clearly defined? Are the results presented clearly and supported by a single table or figure where appropriate? Are statistical data complete, presented clearly, and in appropriate notation? Do the authors present feasibility data (e.g. costs, acceptability)?
- Do the authors clarify the meaning and implications of the results, consider the preconditions required to replicate the innovation in another setting, and suggest next steps?
Click here for a sample You Should Try This! review form.
This section includes comments, opinions and debate, and news with a particularly Canadian flavour or dimension. Submissions could involve personal narratives, historical pieces, and arts and humanities work. All submissions should be limited to 1,000 words.
Commentary and Opinions
These submissions are highly relevant and stimulating opinion pieces with strong arguments and no more than 750 words. They do not include any supporting material i.e. graphs, charts, etc. but may have up to five (5) references.
The CMEJ publishes works-in-progress (WiP) for medical education studies. We intend that publishing works-in-progress will more quickly inform all of us of the promising research that is in progress across Canada and the world. This in turn will provide several advantages and benefits. We hope this initiative will help generate productive partnerships, stimulate in-depth thinking both about methodologies and topics, lead to more rigorous studies through external peer review, reduce duplication, allow us to support valuable data collection, and give us all the luxury of anticipating the eventual findings.
Each submission must meet these inclusion criteria:
- REB (or IRB or equivalent) approval (where possible) or
- In the event where REB approval is not needed, data collection begun by the time of publication
- Formal or informala internal scientific peer review.
- A statement to the editors indicating how these criteria have been met
- Under 600 words
a Informal peer review includes a review from any qualified person outside of the author team. This might include a colleague or research coordinator or faculty mentor or supervisor. If you are not sure, please contact an editor with the CMEJ.
Submissions must include these elements:
- outlining the research questions
- describing the need for the study and intended outcomes (not necessarily the findings but how the study may affect medical education)
- Methods (Fitting the type of study; see guidelines for authors)
- Describing the methods selected to gather and analyze data
- Outlining the extent to which the investigators are willing to consider various forms of collaboration from other researchers at other sites
- Brief overview of context, questions, methods, and implications
In most cases, authors should give approximately equal weight to the Introduction and the Methods. There may be good reason for authors to emphasize one section or the other. Authors are free to set those proportions based on how they want to communicate their study to the public.
Publishing works in progress does not impose upon the CMEJ any commitment or expectation, tacit or implicit, that the completed work will be published. If the studies are completed and submitted to the CMEJ each one will be subject to a rigorous peer review process, the same as for any other submission to a similar section of our journal. The corollary is also true: the authors are not obligated or expected to submit their completed work to the CMEJ. They are free to submit their papers to any section in any journal of their choice.
Letters to the Editor
These are meant to be a reaction to a pertinent issue relating to the CMEJ or a recently published article. They should be no longer than 250 words unless by special arrangement. They do not include any supporting material i.e. graphs, charts, etc. but may have up to three references.
This section will be limited to reviews of recently released books that pertain in some way to the field of medical education. They can include textbooks, edited works, etc. Submissions are to be no more than 1000 words in length and must include a brief, 100 word abstract.
COVID-19 related CMEJ Blogs
The COVID-19 pandemic and public health measures implemented to curb the spread (flatten the curve) and protect us all from exploding and fatal levels of infection have been very disruptive. This has led to unprecedented innovation but also considerable suffering from death of friends and relatives to minor inconveniences such as restrictions on non-essential movements and our favourite recreational activities.
The lives and careers of medical students, residents, faculty, and staff have been affected in many ways and to different degrees. If you are willing and able to write about your medical education related experiences but need a medium to get your ideas out to a wide audience, consider submitting your essays to the CMEJ blog through our normal submission process. Blogs will not be subject to a full peer review process. One or more of our editors will work with authors to polish the blog post before being published on-line. Due to the time-sensitive nature of these posts, we will try to expedite their processing.
Blog posts are posted at https://words.usask.ca/cmejblog.
This section includes images of interest, graphics, photographs, and artwork pertaining to Canadian Medical Education. Submissions may be featured on the CMEJ cover page, or published within an issue. Only high-resolution images will be accepted. Images should be uploaded in PNG or JPG file format with the longest side measuring at least 3130 pixels. Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission from any identifiable individuals depicted in their photos, and permission for any copyrighted material used, including illustrations, and will be asked to provide formal written permission upon acceptance for publication. Authors are expected to adhere to the standards for intellectual property rights and plagiarism, and authors assume full responsibility for the content of their submissions. Authors should include an artist's statement, brief commentary, or description to accompany the image (<300 words). Select images may be selected to appear as the cover image for an upcoming issue.
Submission of an original manuscript to the Canadian Medical Education Journal will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication. If accepted for publication, it will be published online and it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, for commercial purposes, in any language, without the consent of the publisher.
Authors who publish in the Canadian Medical Education Journal agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 Canada Licence. This licence allows anyone to copy and distribute the article for non-commercial purposes provided that appropriate attribution is given. For details of the rights an author grants users of their work, please see the licence summary and the full licence.
I consent to the following use of my data:
The data collected from registered and non-registered users of this journal falls within the scope of the standard functioning of peer-reviewed journals. It includes information that makes communication possible for the editorial process; it is used to informs readers about the authorship and editing of content; it enables collecting aggregated data on readership behaviors, as well as tracking geopolitical and social elements of scholarly communication.
This journal’s editorial team uses this data to guide its work in publishing and improving this journal. Data that will assist in developing this publishing platform may be shared with its developer Public Knowledge Project in an anonymized and aggregated form, with appropriate exceptions such as article metrics. The data will not be sold by this journal or PKP nor will it be used for purposes other than those stated here. The authors published in this journal are responsible for the human subject data that figures in the research reported here.
Those involved in editing this journal seek to be compliant with industry standards for data privacy, including the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provision for "data subject rights" that include (a) breach notification; (b) right of access; (c) the right to be forgotten; (d) data portability; and (e) privacy by design. The GDPR also allows for the recognition of "the public interest in the availability of the data," which has a particular saliency for those involved in maintaining, with the greatest integrity possible, the public record of scholarly publishing.