万维书刊网微信二维码

扫微信,关注编辑QQ!

您的位置:万维书刊网 >>sci/scie期刊 >>医药卫生3>>卫生保健与服务

Academic Medicine(医学理论杂志) (官网投稿)

简介
  • 期刊简称ACAD MED
  • 参考译名医学理论杂志
  • 核心类别 SCI期刊(2018), SCIE期刊(2018),
  • IF影响因子4.801
  • 自引率16.20%
  • 主要研究方向医学-学科教育;医学-卫生保健与服务

主要研究方向:

等待设置主要研究方向
医学-学科教育;医学-卫生保健与服务

Academic Medicine(月刊),创刊于1989年,出版国家为美国。Academic Medicine是美国医学院协会官方同行评议的杂志。该杂志是交流思想,信息和战略的国际论坛,旨在解决学术界面临的重大挑战,为了公众利益而努力执行任务。该杂志的重点领域包括:教育和培训问题; 卫生科学政策; 制度政策,管理和价值观; 研究实践; 和学术环境中的临床实践。
征稿信息

万维提示:

1、投稿方式在线投稿。

2期刊官网:

http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/pages/default.aspx

3、期刊投稿:

http://www.editorialmanager.com/acadmed/default.aspx

4、官网邮箱:academicmedicine@aamc.org

5、官网电话:202-828-0590

2019122日星期二

                                 

 

Instructions to Authors

投稿须知【官网信息】

 

All manuscripts must be submitted electronically via Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/acadmed/.

Types of Manuscripts

Articles

Requirements

Articles may vary in style and length. Generally, they are no longer than 3,000 words and no shorter than 1,500 words (this includes the text only; title page, abstract, references, and exhibits are not included in the word count). However, an author should choose the manuscript length and number of references needed to get the message across. The final length and format will be determined by editorial staff during the review process or when the accepted manuscript is edited.

Articles may have up to five exhibits in total; Supplemental Digital Content may be used if further exhibits are required. The abstract for an Article has no headings and is no longer than 250 words. The number of references should be appropriate to the length and depth of the piece. References should be representative, not comprehensive, and are generally limited to 50. If the manuscript reports the results of a survey you conducted, the full survey instrument should be provided for review along with the manuscript. If the manuscript reports the results of interviews or focus groups, the interview guide should be provided for review along with the manuscript.

Articles cover topics of broad concern to academic medicine; for example, examinations of policies affecting the academic medicine community as a whole; descriptions of institutional mergers or starting new schools; analyses of current educational, political, financial, or social trends affecting or likely to affect academic medicine; and descriptions of well-established innovations with systemic implications for medical education, training, and research.

Articles may also describe topics directly and practically relevant to medical school education, residency training, graduate medical education, or continuing medical education. Such topics include descriptions of well-established innovative programs, medical informatics, information and medical technologies, the history of medical education and training, humanities in medical education, administration or funding innovations, etc.

Articles can combine elements of research and description, where the research is not sufficiently robust or central enough to the Article's message to constitute a full-fledged Research Report.

Additional guidelines for Articles can be found in the Publication Criteria for Articles and Perspectives. Additional information on describing well-established innovative programs is available in the August 2008 editorial; for information on describing pilot or early-stage initiatives, see Innovation Reports. The For Authors page also offers a resource on preparing Articles.

Program evaluations

Program evaluations may be formatted and submitted as Articles, Research Reports, or Innovation Reports. (See Articles and Research Reports for information about those types of program evaluations.) The journal’s November 2017 editorial provides further guidance about preparing and submitting program evaluation manuscripts. A program evaluation should be presented as an Article under the following circumstances:

The purpose is primarily descriptive or conceptual.

The evaluation is not the main focus of the article.

The evaluation is focused on a more mature program.

The manuscript provides rich background and context.

There is discussion about broad application and improvement through future work.

Perspectives

Perspectives may vary in style and length. Generally, they are no longer than 3,000 words and no shorter than 1,500 words (this includes the text only; title page, abstract, references, and exhibits are not included in the word count). However, an author should choose the manuscript length and number of references needed to get the message across. The final length and format will be determined by editorial staff during the review process or when the accepted manuscript is edited.

Perspectives generally have few exhibits, if any, though they may have up to five exhibits in total; Supplemental Digital Content may be used if further exhibits are required. The abstract for a Perspective has no headings and is no longer than 250 words. The number of references should be appropriate to the length and depth of the piece. References should be representative, not comprehensive, and are generally limited to 50. If the manuscript reports the results of a survey you conducted, the full survey instrument should be provided for review along with the manuscript. If the manuscript reports the results of interviews or focus groups, the interview guide should be provided for review along with the manuscript.

Perspectives describe a considered view about one or more issues in academic medicine, propose and support a new hypothesis, or theorize the implications of as-yet unimplemented programs or innovations. Perspectives, which are peer reviewed, must be scholarly and arguments must be well supported.

Additional guidelines for Perspectives can be found in the Publication Criteria for Articles and Perspectives.

Invited Commentaries

Invited Commentaries are invited by the editor-in-chief. Authors should not submit an Invited Commentary without receiving a formal invitation to do so from the editor-in-chief. These solicited opinion essays comment on or set the context for an article or articles that have been accepted for publication. They can also be standalone essays framed as calls to action on major challenges. The abstract for an Invited Commentary has no headings and is no longer than 250 words. Invited Commentaries have few references and rely heavily on the author's perspective and experience to support the argument. They should be less than 2,000 words (this includes the text only; title page, abstract, references, and exhibits are not included in the word count) and generally have few exhibits, if any.

Research Reports

Requirements

Research Reports are reports of original research on any aspect of academic medicine. They may vary in style and length. Generally, Research Reports are no longer than 3,000 words and no shorter than 1,500 words. Qualitative research submissions, which often require more words due to the nature of the data being reported, are generally no longer than 4,000 words.  (All word counts include the text only; title page, abstract, references, and exhibits are not included in the word count). However, an author should choose the manuscript length needed to get the message across. The final length and format will be determined by editorial staff during the review process or when the accepted manuscript is edited.

Research Reports may have up to five exhibits in total; Supplemental Digital Content may be used if further exhibits are required. The abstract for a Research Report should be structured under the headings Purpose, Method, Results, Conclusions, and be no longer than 250 words. The text should be structured under the main-level headings Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion. Raw numbers should accompany percentages, wherever possible throughout the text and exhibits (see Data Reporting and Analysis). The number of references should be appropriate to the length and depth of the piece; references should be representative, not comprehensive, and are generally limited to 50. If the manuscript reports the results of a survey you conducted, the full survey instrument should be provided for review along with the manuscript. If the manuscript reports the results of interviews or focus groups, the interview guide should be provided for review along with the manuscript.

In general, the study must address a serious challenge facing the academic medicine community. Additional guidelines for Research Reports can be found in the Publication Criteria for Research Reports. The For Authors page offers resources on preparing Research Reports.

Program evaluations

Program evaluations may be formatted and submitted as Articles, Research Reports, or Innovation Reports. (See Articles and Research Reports for information about those types of program evaluations.) The journal’s November 2017 editorial provides further guidance about preparing and submitting program evaluation manuscripts. A program evaluation should be presented as a Research Report under the following circumstances:

There is a specific research question(s).

The manuscript reports rigorous evaluation methods.

The manuscript provides robust data analysis.

The findings advance understanding about the topic that was investigated.

Innovation Reports

Requirements

An Innovation Report introduces a new approach to a challenge facing the wider academic medicine community. The goal of an Innovation Report is to highlight first steps toward a larger-scale solution to such a challenge, whether through an innovative pilot or early-stage initiative at a single institution or preliminary research that defines the challenge and/or lays the groundwork for larger-scale approaches to the stated problem. An Innovation Report must demonstrate that the authors’ work has significant implications for the continued study of the stated problem. It must also provide enough information to allow the replication of the innovation or continuation of the research in other settings.

Innovation Reports have a strict limit of 2,000 words (this limit applies to the text only; title page, abstract, disclosures, references, and exhibits are not included in the word count). The abstract and text must be organized under the main-level headings Problem, Approach, Outcomes, Next Steps. Innovation Reports may have no more than 10 references and are limited to three total exhibits; Supplemental Digital Content may be used if further exhibits are required. If the manuscript reports the results of a survey you conducted, the full survey instrument should be provided for review along with the manuscript. If the manuscript reports the results of interviews or focus groups, the interview guide should be provided for review along with the manuscript.

Additional guidelines for Innovation Reports can be found in the Publication Criteria for Innovation Reports. The For Authors page offers resources on preparing Innovation Reports.

Program evaluations

Program evaluations may be formatted and submitted as Articles, Research Reports, or Innovation Reports. (See Articles and Research Reports for information about those types of program evaluations.) The journal’s November 2017 editorial provides further guidance about preparing and submitting program evaluation manuscripts. A program evaluation should be presented as an Innovation Report under the following circumstances:

The manuscript introduces a new approach to a challenge facing the wider academic medicine community.

The manuscript gives a glimpse into a program at an early stage of development.

The manuscript describes a local, novel, often cutting-edge approach that may be generalizable.

The manuscript emphasizes how a preliminary evaluation of the early experience informs next steps.

Literature Reviews

Academic Medicine considers Literature Review submissions that critically review and synthesize the scholarly literature. Literature Reviews should provide new understanding of the topic or provide new ways of thinking about the issues under review. Priority will be given to critical reviews by experts that help advance understanding of a specific topic or problem in academic medicine. Reviews may vary in type and length. Generally, Literature Reviews are no longer than 4,000 words. (Word count includes the text only; title page, abstract, references, disclosures, and exhibits are not included in the word count). However, an author should choose the manuscript length needed to get the message across. The final length and format will be determined by editorial staff during the review process or when the accepted manuscript is edited.

Literature Reviews may have up to five exhibits in total; Supplemental Digital Content may be used if further exhibits are required. The abstract for a Literature Review should be structured under the headings Purpose, Method, Results, Conclusions, and be no longer than 250 words. The text should be structured under the main-level headings Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion. Raw numbers should accompany percentages, wherever possible throughout the text and exhibits (see Data Reporting and Analysis).

In successful Literature Review submissions, comprehensive parameters are defined and followed for searching the literature, and findings are interpreted and put into context. In general, Literature Review submissions should adhere to the guidelines below. Additional guidelines for Literature Reviews can be found in the Publication Criteria for Literature Reviews. The For Authors page offers resources on preparing Literature Reviews. 

It is recommended that authors consult the review type’s relevant guidelines (e.g., for a systematic review, the authors might consider PRISMA.) Guidelines for a wide range of review types are available at: http://www.equator-network.org/.

Systematic reviews

Systematic reviews analyze and interpret all available evidence in the literature related to a specific, focused research question. They have the following characteristics:

Reproducibility and research question: Distinct reproducible research method. Requires a testable hypothesis or a focused research question.

Search and selection process: The search of the literature is systematic and comprehensive; articles are selected for inclusion according to criteria set in advance.

Analysis: Data are systematically abstracted from the reviewed articles and compiled into evidence tables.

Interpretation: Data are interpreted in the context of all relevant studies. (Meta-analyses analyze data across studies identified in systematic reviews.)

(Adapted from Lang TA. The value of systematic reviews as research activities in medical education. Acad Med. 2004;79:1067-1072.)

Narrative reviews

Narrative reviews serve to describe the existing literature on a topic without offering systematic analysis of the quality of that literature. They have the following characteristics:

Reproducibility and research question: Neither systematic nor reproducible.

Search and selection process:  An “expert” selects the articles deemed to be most important.

Analysis: An “expert” comes to some conclusions based on these articles (as well as his or her own experience).

Interpretation: An “expert” summarizes his or her understanding of the issues in a review article.

(Adapted from Lang TA. The value of systematic reviews as research activities in medical education. Acad Med. 2004;79:1067-1072.)

Scoping reviews

Scoping reviews address broader, exploratory research questions with the ultimate goal of mapping the literature on a topic. They have the following characteristics:

Reproducibility and research question: Research question is broad and exploratory in nature.

Search and selection process: Search is systematic and described in detail with flexible inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Analysis: Studies are not systematically appraised or appraisal is informal.

Interpretation: Synthesis is typically performed based on qualitative characteristics. No quantitative analysis is performed.

For more on scoping reviews, see Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Durning SJ, Young ME. Knowledge Synthesis in Medical Education: Demystifying Scoping Reviews. Acad Med. 2017;92:161-166. 

Other types of reviews

This is not an exhaustive list of review types considered by the journal. Other review types are welcome. It is recommended that, no matter the review type selected, the authors clearly state their rationale for selecting the review type and, when possible, consult the review type’s relevant guidelines (e.g., for a realist review, authors might consider the RAMSES publication standards). Guidelines for a wide range of literature review types are available at: http://www.equator-network.org/.

New Conversations

New Conversations is an ongoing series that allows authors to discuss a pre-determined topic in articles published over the course of many issues—typically a year or more. The New Conversations topic is determined by the editor-in-chief in consultation with the associate editors and editorial board. The current New Conversations topic is outlined in an AM Rounds blog post.

New Conversations submissions may be invited or unsolicited. Anyone may submit an article to be considered as part of the New Conversations series. New Conversations submissions can be formatted as Articles, Perspectives, Invited Commentaries, Research Reports, Innovation Reports, or Literature Reviews, but they must fit within the current New Conversations topic. To have your submission considered for the New Conversations series, use the article type “New Conversations” when submitting your manuscript. Submissions are peer reviewed and subject to editing if accepted.

Special Features

Abstracts are not needed for the items in the following categories; generally, references are not needed either.

Cover Art

These original works of art should be inspired by, but not necessarily representative of, an academic medicine experience from any perspective: caregiver, researcher, teacher, learner, or patient (for example, learning how to be a physician or scientist, caring for patients, exploring research questions, making a new discovery, being a research participant, teaching, or being cared for in a teaching hospital). The journal welcomes photography, sculpture, painting, textile work, and other visual media. Images may be cropped or resized to fit into the allotted cover space. Acceptance is contingent on the artist's signing an AAMC Artist Consent Form provided at the time the offer of publication is extended.

Artists must also submit a related Cover Art essay as a narrative companion to the artwork, to explain the connection between the work and the "academic medicine experience." The related narrative should be 250 to 600 words and is subject to editing.

High-resolution TIFF files with a minimum of 300 dpi resolution are required at the time of submission. Images are at least 4 ¼" x 4 ¼" (with the ideal size being 4 ¼" x 4 ½") and are vertical or square, not horizontal. Images must be grayscale or CMYK. Submissions do not require an abstract.

更多详情请查阅官网信息Instructions to Authors


投稿问答最小化  关闭