Information for Reviewers

As per the announcement made by the journal’s owner, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), CMAJ Open will no longer be accepting submissions. Read more…

Reviewers play a crucial role in the publication of research in CMAJ Open. They help us ensure that the studies we publish are methodologically sound, ethical and reported using the appropriate reporting guidelines. Sound research flows from a clear research question, addressed by an appropriate study design carried out to a high standard. We accept about 50% of papers submitted for publication.

Why Review for CMAJ OPEN?

Reviewers have an opportunity to see the latest research coming from Canadian and international research teams.
By contributing their assessment of the submitted studies, they contribute to the advancement of medical and health knowledge.
Reviewers receive feedback through receiving a copy of the decision letter sent to the author group. The submitted manuscript, the reviewer comments and the final version are all available at publication, demonstrating the input of peer reviewers in improving the manuscript.
Reviewers are usually able to claim reviewing for CMAJ Open as continuing professional development credit. See the College of Family Physicians of Canada or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada for more information on their credit programs. Reviewers from other jurisdictions should contact their local maintenance of certification program.
Reviewers are publicly acknowledged annually on the CMAJ Open homepage. Reviewer lists are also available at the bottom of this page.

How to Become a Reviewer

If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for CMAJ Open, please register at CMAJ Open's ScholarOne manuscript submission site.

✓ Information on how to register is available on the site, as well as resources for reviewers.

✓ Please include your areas of expertise when registering, as these keywords will help us choose manuscripts that are appropriate for you to review.

✓ If you are unavailable to review for a period of time, please enter this information on the website. This will help us to select another reviewer quickly.

How We Decide Which Papers to Publish

There are 3 steps in our process: selection of manuscripts for external review, selection for an editorial discussion, and offer of publication, subject to revision. See CMAJ Open's Editorial Process flow chart.

1. On submission: An editor reviews the submitted paper and makes an initial decision whether to send the paper for peer review or to reject the paper without peer review. Rejecting a paper requires a majority decision from 3 editors. Most of the time, 2 editors will suffice because, after reading a submitted manuscript, they agree to either reject it without peer review or to request reports from peer reviewers. If the 2 editors disagree, a third editor's opinion is used as a tie breaker. Most manuscripts are rejected at this stage.

2. After peer review: If the reports from peer reviewers identify serious concerns, the manuscript will be rejected (a small proportion of papers are rejected at this stage). We require at least 2 peer review reports to make this decision. A majority decision from 3 editors is needed for rejection (as described above).

3. Offer of publication: The remaining papers are discussed by the editors, including a statistician if applicable. For an offer of publication to be made, a majority decision is required from 3 editors. Most of the time, 2 editors will suffice because, after reading the manuscript and reviewer comments, they agree to work with the authors to move it to publication (revise or accept), request additional peer reviews, ask for more information from the authors (overhaul) or reject the paper. If the 2 editors disagree, a third editor's opinion is used as a tie breaker.

What You Should Know About Reviewing for CMAJ OPEN

Your Review

CMAJ Open does not ask you to judge manuscripts on the basis of originality, importance or generalizability of findings; rather, we are looking for your opinion on:

The strengths and shortcomings of the manuscript and, if possible, how each shortcoming can be addressed.
Whether the paper is methodologically sound (a brief critical appraisal of the research methods used).
How well the authors have placed their research in the context of the literature.
Adherence to the relevant reporting guideline checklist (see Reporting Guideline box below for require checklists). This is a useful tool in completing your review.

Final Decision

The editor is responsible for the final decision to accept, revise or reject a submission based on the comments made by the reviewers and input by at least 1 other editor along with a statistician, if applicable. A majority of 3 editors is required to accept or reject all manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Open Peer Review

CMAJ Open uses open peer review:

You will be able see the names of the authors and vice versa during the peer review process.
You will be asked to include your name, position and institution at the bottom of your review.
Please do not make any comments that you do not wish authors and readers to read (see below for exception).
At publication, reviewer comments, author responses, previous versions and the completed reporting guideline checklist are available along with the final published version.

Serious Concerns

There may be occasions when reviewers have serious concerns about a manuscript from a research or publication ethics standpoint, such as plagiarism or falsification of data. There is a text box for confidential comments to the editor as part of the review score sheet. This should onlybe filled in by reviewers when serious breaches in ethics are suspected. This information will be treated as confidential and investigated as required by the journal.

Competing Interests

You will be asked to write a statement outlining any competing interests relevant to the manuscript when completing a review for CMAJ Open. We recognize that many reviewers will have competing interests, but these do not necessarily prevent you from reviewing. You will have an opportunity to decline our invitation to review if you think that your competing interests preclude you from providing fair comment on the manuscript.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts submitted are confidential. Please respect the author's privacy when reviewing the manuscript.

If you would like to consult with a colleague about a manuscript, please acknowledge that input on the review and include a statement of their competing interests. It would be preferable to have your colleague register as a reviewer on our manuscript submission website

Time to Review

You have 2 weeks to complete your peer review (earlier is always better, of course!) If you require more time, please contact us at [email protected]. Please let us know as soon as possible if you are unable to complete your review for any reason, and we can find another reviewer.

Patient Reviewers

For articles that meet the criteria for our Patient-Oriented Research collection, we invite patient reviewers as well as scientific peer reviewers. Patient reviewers may consult our detailed guidance for patient reviewers to find out more.

Required Reporting Guidelines

CMAJ Open requires compliance with the following reporting guidelines. A completed version of the appropriate checklist should be uploaded as a file with your submission and designated as "Reporting Guideline Checklist." View the EQUATOR Network guidelines.

Required reporting guidelines

CHEERS: Health economic evaluations
CHERRIES: Web-based surveys
CONSORT: Randomized controlled trials (please use appropriate extension)
COREQ: Qualitative research
GRIPP2: Patient-oriented studies (plus appropriate checklist for study type)
MOOSE: Meta-analyses of observational studies
PRISMA: Systematic reviews
PRISMA-P: Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
PRISMA-ScR: Scoping reviews
RECORD: Studies using routinely collected observational data (please use appropriate extension)
REPRISE: Studies describing priority setting of health research
SPIRIT: Protocols of randomized controlled trials
SQUIRE 2.0: Quality improvement studies
STARD: Diagnostic accuracy studies
STROBE: Observational studies in epidemiology (please use appropriate checklist)

For more information on these and other reporting guidelines, see Equator Network.

Reviewer List

Every year, we rely on the voluntary contributions of peer reviewers to help us appraise and improve research submitted to CMAJ Open. We are incredibly grateful for the generosity of the following peer reviewers: