The SPC recognizes individuals for their outstanding service in providing exceptional reviews during the manuscript peer-review process. Honorees will be acknowledged in the opening session, in the Onsite Program, and in the Proceedings as Distinguished Reviewers.
We have created these guidelines to help you understand what is expected of AMIA Symposium reviewers. The purpose of an Annual Symposium review is:
- To give the authors of the paper, abstract, or proposal feedback about their manuscript, including, most importantly, a description of ways that the manuscript could be improved.
- To provide the SPC with an opinion regarding the suitability of the manuscript for the Annual Symposium. The SPC select the best papers, abstracts, and proposals to be presented at the Symposium in a competitive process.
If you do not feel qualified to review a submission that has been assigned to you, please immediately return it to the SPC by emailing email@example.com so that it can be assigned to another reviewer. You will be asked to provide numerical ratings for the submissions on a scale from 1-5 on criteria such as importance, scholarship, methods, clarity, overall recommendation, and reviewer confidence. In addition, you will be asked to provide 2 sets of comments for each submission you review: (1) Comments for the Authors (2) Comments for the Scientific Program Committee. You should also screen the submission to validate that if complies with the appropriate format (3).
1. Comments for the Authors
- Should average one-half page (200-250 words) but may be longer if there are substantive comments to be made.
- If you are recommending that the work be rejected, please include at least 2-3 substantive sentences about the key flaws and/or ways it could be improved for a future submission
- We require that in one sentence, you summarize the contribution to the AMIA community. This summary will be seen by the author(s).
- Other comments to the Authors may include:
1. Comments regarding the suitability of the work for the AMIA audience
2. Contribution to the field of informatics
3. Comments regarding whether the context for the work was properly established (i.e., is the literature review adequate, etc.)
4. Comments regarding the suitability of the methods
5. Comments regarding the appropriateness of the analyses and the importance of the results
6. Other comments about how the paper, abstract or proposal could be improved
2. Comments to the Program Committee
- These are to be used if there are summary or confidential comments the reviewer wishes to make to the SPC. The submitting Authors will not see the Comments to the SPC.
- Assuming substantive comments have been made in the Comments to the Authors section, the Comments to the SPC may be brief. The SPC will see the Comments to the Authors as part of its decision making process.
3. Once again, please justify your score for all Review Questions with details from the paper, abstract, or proposal to assist the authors improve their work. Please see http://www.amia.org/amia2013/call-for-participation for more information on reviewer expectations and formats.
AMIA Conflict of Interest Statement (COI) for Conference Peer-review: Reviewers for the American Medical Informatics Association must disclose any conflict of interest that they believe will compromise their ability to give an unbiased review. Conflicts of interest may arise due to financial interest in a product, a professional bias, or a personal relationship (whether positive or negative) with the author(s.) By agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers agree to protect the unpublished document from all forms of exploitation, treat it as confidential material, adopt an impartial and unbiased attitude toward the manuscript, and not communicate directly with the authors about the manuscript. Please indicate a COI by checking the appropriate box on the review screen and email firstname.lastname@example.org when this situation arises.