The Review Process
A manuscript is submitted for publication at http://feyz.kaums.ac.ir/. The Editor-in-Chief checks the manuscript for proper format and conformance with submission instructions and acknowledges receipt.
The manuscript is then assigned to the appropriate Editorial Board that select 3 or more qualified reviewers. Notification is sent by email to each reviewer who is asked to confirm his or her willingness to perform the review in a timely manner (within Two weeks if possible). The review process is double blind i.e. no information about the authors will be provided to the reviewers and vice versa. The Feyz Coordinator is given tracks the review process to make sure that it moves ahead as rapidly as possible.
General Guidelines for Reviewers
To review a manuscript you must have registered as a reviewer. All communications related to a manuscript will take place online. Once registered after you login to the system you will see list of manuscripts assigned to you.
1. As a reviewer you should check overall quality scientific merit presentation.
2. Upload a Word file with your comments (use track changes-don't forget to remove your name from comments) and register your recommendation using the online system.
The Editor-in-Chief will consider the recommendations of the reviewers and will forward the comments anonymously to the author along with a consensus recommendation. The author(s) will make appropriate revisions and resubmit the manuscript.
When the Editor-in-Chief is satisfied that the manuscript meets the Feyz quality standards the manuscript will be published. A footer will be added to each page of the manuscript stating the volume number and the official name of the Feyz (Journal of Medical Education Development). An email will be sent to the author from the Editor-in-Chief stating that the manuscript has been published in Feyz.
Periodically all published technical manuscripts and invited overview papers will be put on a CD and sent to several key libraries and indexing around the world for permanent archiving.
Review of Manuscripts Guidelines
1- Does the manuscript have the potential to expand the fundamental knowledge in its specific area?
2- Is the manuscript scientifically sound?
3- Is the investigator(s) cognizant of past work?
4- Does the manuscript thoroughly evaluate all necessary avenues of the study?
5- Are the objectives clear and logical?
6- Are the methodologies designs and analytical techniques appropriate adequate and completely described?
7- Are the conclusions objective significant and sound based on the findings of the investigator?
8- Does the manuscript reflect originality and ingenuity in its appropriate field?
Overall Quality and Content
1- Does the title depict the nature of the study?
2- Have appropriate keywords been selected?
3- Does the summary adequately describe the study in a clear concise manner?
4- Is the manuscript well written and organized?
5- Is the paper adequately referenced and the reference style consistent?
6- Are any tables charts figures or other graphical representations used necessary correctly used and analyzed and easily interpreted by the reader?
7- Can any part of the manuscript be shortened or omitted without loss of scientific content?
8- Please note any general strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript here along with any other comments you might have.