Instructions for reviewers

Peer reviewers are qualified professionals with experience in the thematic area of the Journal of Health Sciences Education.

Peer reviewers must meet the following criteria to belong to the Editorial Committee of the journal:

The peer review process of the Journal of Health Sciences Education aims to:

Peer reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to the type of article based on the following guidelines:

• Title
  Informative and coherent with the objectives of the study.
• Originality of the research
  Evaluate whether the chosen topic is novel and original to research in medical education.
• Relevance of the topic
  To evaluate if the research responds to a knowledge gap in medical education.
• Introduction
  • Theoretical background should be presented to support the object of study.
  • Empirical background should be presented to support the object of study.
  • Justification of the study’s contribution to state-of-the-art (theoretical relevance).
  • Justification of the practical implications of the study (practical relevance).
  • Justification of the study’s contribution to the way research is conducted (methodological relevance).
  • Identification of the knowledge gap.
• Objective of the study
  Evaluate clarity in the formulation of the objectives.
  • Quantitative: Determine the type of scope (verb) + variables + participants + context.
  • Qualitative: Scope the type of scope (verb) + categories (dimensions) + participants + context.
• Rigor and pertinence in the methodology
  • Type of research: quantitative or qualitative.
  • Research design or approach:
    1. Quantitative: Non-experimental (cross-sectional or longitudinal) – Experimental (pre-experimental or quasi-experimental)
    2. Qualitative: Grounded Theory, Ethnography, Case Studies, Phenomenology, Action Research, Biography.
  • Data collection techniques:
    1. Quantitative: surveys or questionnaires, identify the validity and reliability of the instruments used.
    2. Qualitative: interviews, observation, field notes. Describe how the instrument design process was safeguarded.
  • Sampling: Description of the study participants and recognition of the sampling technique used, according to the type of research (quantitative or qualitative).
  • Procedure: Describe how the research process was developed.
  • Ethical safeguards: What was considered in the research.
  • Analysis plan: According to the type of research carried out (quantitative or qualitative).
• Relevance of the analysis of the results
  • Description of the results in a specific way.
  • Selection of the relevant results.
  • Coherence between the results and the objective of the study.
  • Relevance of the analysis.
    1. Quantitative: present descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate results, among others.
    2. Qualitative: description in prose. Include quotations and identification of the source, according to the type of analysis.
• Coherence and relevance of the discussion
  Contrast the results obtained with the theoretical and empirical background previously presented.
• Formal presentation of the manuscript
  The manuscript is consistent with what is requested in the RECS author’s instructions.

• Title
  Informative and consistent with the objectives of the study.
• Originality of the research
  Evaluate whether the topic chosen in the study is novel and original to research in medical education.
• Relevance of the topic
  Evaluate whether the research responds to a knowledge gap in medical education.
• Introduction
  • Theoretical-conceptual background supporting the intervention should be presented.
  • Empirical background supporting the intervention should be presented.
  • The pedagogical frame of reference (constructivist, behaviorist, socio-critical, competency-based, etc.) should be explicit.
  • Justification of the contribution of the intervention to the state of the art of the subject (theoretical relevance).
  • Justification of the practical implications of the intervention (social relevance).
  • Identification of the practical problem to be addressed by the intervention.
• Objective of the study
  Identify the scope (verb) + type of intervention (PBA, OSCE, TBL, etc.) + variable (learning, satisfaction) + intervention subjects + context.
• Rigor and relevance in the intervention methodology
  • Type of intervention: at the assessment level, at the didactic level, at the curricular level. In one subject or in several topics.
  • Expected changes: describe the expected changes to be generated through the intervention.
  • Participants: describe the target group or participants (number of participants and distribution by gender, age, or other relevant characteristics).
  • Data collection: identify the instruments or evaluation techniques used throughout the intervention.
  • Procedure: describe how the intervention process was carried out.
  • Ethical safeguards: what was considered in the intervention.
  • Analysis plan: describe how the results of the intervention process were analyzed (may be process and/or product).
• Relevance of the analysis of the results
  • Description of the results in a specific way.
  • Selection of the relevant results.
  • Consistency between the results and the intervention objective.
  • Describe the relevance of the analysis to the intervention objectives.
• Coherence and relevance of the discussion
  Contrast the results obtained with the theoretical and empirical background previously presented.
• Formal presentation of the manuscript
  The manuscript is coherent with what is requested in the RECS author’s instructions.

• Title
  Informative and consistent with the objectives of the study.
• Originality of the review
  Evaluate whether the topic chosen in the review is novel to guide the theoretical discussion of medical education.
• Relevance of the topic
  To evaluate if the bibliographic review responds to contingent topics in medical education.
• Introduction
  Specify why the topic to be developed is of interest to the discipline of medical education, integrating traditional and emerging theoretical postulates.
• Development
  • Theoretical background should be presented to support the phenomenon of interest.
  • Empirical background should be presented to support the phenomenon of interest.
  • Justification of the contribution of the phenomenon of interest to state of the art (theoretical relevance).
  • Justification of the practical implications of the phenomenon of interest (practical relevance).
  • Justification of the phenomenon of interest in how research is done (methodological relevance).
  • In case of meta-analysis, specify what type of systematic review was performed: Qualitative or quantitative. Review article (Letelier et al. 2005).
• Conclusion
  Describe or make explicit the central points reflected throughout the review.
  Value the importance of developing this topic in the discipline of medical education.
• Formal presentation of the manuscript
  The manuscript is coherent with what is requested in the RECS author’s instructions.

• Title
  Informative and consistent with the objectives of the study.
• Originality of the intervention
  Evaluate whether the chosen topic is novel and original to research in medical education.
• Relevance of the topic
  To evaluate if the intervention responds to a knowledge gap in medical education.
• Introduction
  • Theoretical and conceptual background supporting the intervention should be presented.
  • Empirical background supporting the intervention should be presented.
  • Justification of the contribution of the intervention to the state of the art of the subject (theoretical relevance).
  • Justification of the practical implications of the intervention (social relevance).
  • Identification of the practical problem to be addressed by the intervention.
• Objective of the study
  Identify the scope (verb) + type of intervention (PBA, OSCE, TBL, etc.) + variable (learning, satisfaction) + subjects.
• Rigor and relevance in the intervention methodology
  • Type of intervention: at the evaluation level, at the didactic level, at the curricular level. In one subject or in several topics.
  • Expected changes: describe the expected changes to be generated through the intervention.
  • Participants: describe the target group or participants (number of participants and distribution by gender, age, or other relevant characteristics).
  • Data collection: identify the instruments or evaluation techniques used throughout the intervention.
  • Procedure: describe how the intervention process was carried out.
  • Ethical safeguards: what was considered in the intervention.
• Coherence and relevance of the discussion
  contrasts the results obtained with the theoretical and empirical background previously presented.
• Formal presentation of the manuscript
  The manuscript is coherent with what was requested in the RECS author’s instructions.