Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

<em>CPC-EM</em> Reviewer

Clinical Practice and Cases in Emergency Medicine (CPC-EM) Peer Review Policy for Interested Reviewers

All interested reviewers must meet the requirements for the CPC-EM:

  • The interested reviewer must be board certified, or eligible, in emergency medicine.
  • The interested reviewer must be academically affiliated with a university or institution.
  • The interested reviewer must have at least 1 original research publication listed on his or her CV. All articles pending a final decision must be included.
  • A letter of interest and most recent CV must be emailed to Dr. Rick McPheeters, DO, at editor@cpcem.org. The CV will be kept on file at the CPC-EM office.
  • The reviewer is expected to review 2 to 5 reviews per calendar year.
  • The reviewer must complete the assigned review within 14 days of request. If the reviewer is unable to complete the review within 14 days, the reviewer must notify the Editorial Director at editor@cpcem.org.
  • Reviewers must complete the Peer Review Training Module created by Annals of Emergency Medicine that can be found here.
  • Although not required, it is highly recommended that all interested reviewers contact the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) for enrollment into the Emergency Medicine Basic Research Skills (EMBERS) course.

All interested reviewers acknowledge:

  • The authors remain confidential and blinded during the review process.
  • The reviewer may not disclose any details of the review until after an official decision has been made.
  • Reviewer comments and critiques are not published with the manuscript.

Peer Review Policy

CPC-EM adhere to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publications.1 All manuscripts submitted to the CPC-EM undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process, whereas the authors and reviewers are blinded from each other’s names or affiliations. Editors are not to disclose the confidentiality of reviewers or authors. Details of the review are not revealed to the authors until review is complete and an official decision on the manuscript is made. Editors, editorial staff and reviewers are not to discuss publicly any authors’ works until publication. Manuscripts sent for review are privileged information and are the sole property of the authors’ until publication, at which time the manuscript is under the creative common license. For more information, click here.

All section editors assign at least 3-5 reviewers to whom the identities of the authors remain anonymous. Reviewers provide thorough feedback on the assigned article and make recommendations to the editors regarding the following:

  • Critique of the methodology
  • The impact and strength of the article
  • Significant limitations that need to be addressed
  • Are tables and figures relevant and suitable to the manuscript
  • Comments on the clarify, brevity and grammar

The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors will register the final decision. The reviewer’s identity will remain confidential throughout the peer review process.