e-Lecture Review Process

General Procedures:
When an e-Lecture is submitted it will be sent to one to two experts in the field for review and one general reviewer (i.e. someone from outside the lecture discipline). The author is encouraged to submit the names of researchers whose comments they would find valuable. The e-Lecture Associate Editor will e-mail the reviewers requesting a review of the submitted lecture. Reviewers are given two weeks to acknowledge receipt of the review. If they agree to review the lecture they are allowed four weeks to submit the review.

Guidelines for Reviewers (PDF):
Reviews are confidential. Please send your review in two parts:

Part 1. General and detailed comments (sent to the author).
Review the lecture for content accuracy and clarity. Make concrete suggestions for improvement, criticize specific points, figures, or tables, and identify sections that could be eliminated or modified. When providing input please note that the e-Lecture authors were instructed to design their lectures to be given within a 45-min period and, except for rapid-fire photographs, were strongly discouraged to develop presentations in excess of 50 slides. We therefore request that you bear this in mind and limit suggestions for adding additional information to that which is absolutely crucial (i.e. big information gaps rather than small details).

  1. The following questions are provided as a guideline:
  2. Was the topic of the lecture clearly defined?
  3. Was the subject placed in its historical context?
  4. Is the lecture organized and clear?
  5. As outlined, were all the most relevant points covered?
  6. Does the treatment of the subject include the most recent findings available?
  7. Is a concise summary given at the end of the lecture?
  8. Are the visuals clear and appropriate to the topic?
  9. If handouts are included, are they appropriate and useful?
  10. Is the recommended reading list adequate? Do you have any suggestions for changes or modifications to the reading list?

Part 2. Recommendation to the e-Lecture Associate Editor (not sent to the author). Please start this Part of your review on a new page. Recommend to the Associate Editor what you believe the fate of the lecture should be (one of the four categories listed below).

Accept. This category is reserved for those lectures that do not require any substantive changes.

Accept after suitable revision. Indicate whether your recommended revisions are minor or major in scope, and whether you are willing to review the author's revision.

Reject with invitation for resubmission. The lecture has minimal potential, but needs extensive modification. The author is invited to completely revise/modify and resubmit a new lecture for consideration. Include constructive criticism and recommendations for revision to justify decision.

Reject. The lecture fails to meet the requirements for acceptance, and is not invited for resubmission. Include constructive criticism to justify decision.

The reviews along with the Associate Editor’s final recommendations will then be sent to the e-Lecture Editor for final acceptance and subsequent posting.