FPM’s peer reviewers will soon have something more than satisfaction to show for their efforts.
Fam Pract Manag. 2004 Nov-Dec;11(10):11.
Occasionally I speak with someone who is surprised to hear that Family Practice Management is a peer-reviewed journal. After all, we don’t typically publish research, and FPM’s informal presentation may belie the seriousness of its purpose. But FPM is indeed peer reviewed, and for good reason. The quality of the articles published in FPM owes a good deal to the contributions of our reviewers, and I am speaking for all the editors of the journal when I express our gratitude to all the reviewers who have helped this year. You’ll see their names below.
Thanks to these reviewers for their help in 2004
F. Michael Arnow, CPA, CFP; Tricia Baird, MD; Bruce Becker, MD; Kenneth D. Beckman, MD, MBA; Thomas Benzoni, DO; Wendy Biggs, MD; James D. Blankenship, MD, FAAFP; B. Wayne Blount, MD, MPH; Robert H. Bösl, MD, FAAFP; Kenneth E. Bowden, CHBC, CFP; Don B. Cauthen, MD; Peter A. Cardinal, MD, MHA, FAAFP; Andrew J. Carroll, MD; Dale A. Carroll, MD, MPH; John Chahbazi, MD; Wai-Lam Chan, MD; Tony C. Clark, CHBC; Cynthia Coletti, MD; Melody Counts, MD; Dan F. Criswell, MD; Cynthia D. Croy, MD; Maria Cuda, DO; Michelle Dabreu, MD; J. Landy Damsey, MBA, MHS; Heather Dawson, MD; Daniel R. Erickson, MD; Evelyn Eskin, MBA; Jason Evans, MD; Marie Felger, CPC, CCS-P; Thomas A. Felger, MD, CMCM; David Filipi, MD, MBA; Mitch Finnie, MD; Joseph B. FitzHarris, MD, MPH; Chester H. Fox, MD; Len Fromer, MD; Julea Garner, MD; Fred Gaupp, MD; Paul Gausman, DO; Micheal F. Gervasi, DO; Devona Gibbs, RN, CS, FNP; Philip A. Gilly, MD; Amie Gordon-Langbein, DO; Alice G. Gosfield, JD; Carol S. Grench, MD; Cynthia Haines, MD; John J. Haley, MD; Lynn Handy, CPC, LPN; Paul D. Haynes, CHBC, EA; Gilbert Head, MD; Theodor F. Herwig, MD; Emily Hill, PA-C; Bruce A. Hoekstra, MD; Timothy O. Holcomb, MD; James P. Hoye, MD; David B. Jack, MD; Mark S. Jeffries, DO; Audrey Jones, DO; Renate G. Justin, MD; Vasilios J. Kalogredis, JD, CHBC, CFP; Leslie Knight, MD; Christopher G. Koman, MD; Barry Kottler, MD; Jane P. Kramar, MD; Shane J. Kraus, MD; Stephen K. Lane, MD; Paul A. Lazar, MD; A. Lane Lee, MD; James Leitzell, MD; James Liszewski, MD; Lisa Longwell, CCS-P; Carolyn C. Lopez, MD; Meryl D. Luallin; J. Phillip Macon, MBA; Terry McGeeney, MD; Tom McGuinness, CPA, CVA; Frank A. Mihoda, CPA, MT; George W. Miller, Jr., MD, FAAFP; Kathryn I. Moghadas, RN, CHBC, CHCC, CLRM; Anthony D. Molinaro, Jr., MD; Kent Moore; Nancy Moultrie Rockstroh, MD; Ralph P. Naftaly, DO; Joy Newby, LPN, CPC; Debbie Newcomb, CCMA-AC; Maureen A. Newman, MD, MPH; Kelly K. O'Malia, MD; Randall L. Oliver, MD; O. Daniel Osaro, MD; Judith Pauwels, MD; Debra Phairas; William R. Phillips, MD, MPH; Jerome Pumo, Jr., DO; Terry G. Ribbens, MD; Linda M. Rimkunos, MD; Lee B. Sacks, MD; Todd Sagin, MD, JD; Lynn Sallings, CPC, CCP; Devdutta Sangvai, MD; Jeffrey B. Sansweet, JD, LLM; Robert Sawicki, MD; P. Schludermann, MD, FAAFP; Susan Schooley, MD; Meetul V. Shah, MD; Roger C. Shenkel, MD; William D. Soper, MD, MBA; Evan N. Steil, MD, MA; Jeff Suzewits, DO, MPH; Cynthia Swanson, RN, CPC; C. Carolyn Thiedke, MD; Susan A. Thomas, MD; Mary Alice Tillman; Carol J. Uebelacker, MD; Brian K. Unwin, MD; Joyce Veino, MD; Charles Wayne Weart, PharmD, BCPS, FASHP; Susan Welsh, CPC; William A. Woolery, DO, PhD
Credit where credit is due
For now, we can offer only heartfelt thanks, but starting next year, we hope to be able to offer something more: CME credit. Starting Jan. 1, the AAFP will award Prescribed credit for manuscript reviews and the AMA will be offering Category 1 credit. Since the AAFP policy is only in draft stage at this point, I can’t be sure of the exact arrangements, but AAFP members will be able to report up to 2 Prescribed credits per review, with a maximum of 10 credits from manuscript reviewing in a given year. Members will be able to report their credit directly through the AAFP Web site. FPM may also be able to issue certificates of participation to reviewers who are not AAFP members.
I am glad to be able to offer CME credit, because I know that a good review takes time and can require some research; moreover, I know that the scores of reviewers on the FPM panel have volunteered to serve with no recompense but the knowledge that they are helping the readers of the journal. Besides, I also know that reading articles for the purpose of reviewing them is almost inevitably a learning experience for the reviewer - one for which CME credit should properly be offered.
As the AAFP finalizes the details and logistics of this new program, we’ll let reviewers know how to take advantage of the opportunity for credit. Watch this space for more information.
A great time to volunteer
Especially now that we have the inducement of CME credit to offer, I can’t refrain from calling for additional reviewers. FPM has a particular need for a large review panel, for two reasons: First, the variety of subjects we cover is in some respects broader than that covered by a clinical journal and extends into the outer reaches of management, quality improvement, health care financing, behavior change, computerization and so on. Second, the practical nature of FPM – the fact that we want every article to be of as much use to as many readers as possible – demands that we recruit two types of reviewers:
Subject-area experts: physicians and nonphysicians who can provide reliable assessments of the validity and currency of information provided in submitted manuscripts,
Reader representatives: practicing family physicians who explicitly do not review from the perspective of subject-matter expertise but who can tell us whether the information provided in submitted manuscripts is relevant to their practices.
Only by obtaining input from reviewers of both types can we judge whether a given manuscript is likely to be both authoritative and useful. Consequently, we try to obtain reviews from four or five reviewers for each manuscript. As a result, we find ourselves overworking at least some reviewers to an embarrassing extent.
If you feel you have something to contribute to the FPM peer review process, and particularly if you have greater-than-average knowledge of one or more of the subject areas you typically see in FPM, please think of volunteering your services. You would be committed to do no more than three or four manuscripts a year.
Think of the satisfaction you’ll derive from helping your colleagues, and think of the CME credit you can earn. We’ve tried to make volunteering as easy as possible. Fill out the reply card on page 80, tear it out, and send it in, or download our online form (http://www.aafp.org/fpm/newreviewer.pdf) and return it to us by e-mail or fax. We’ll register you as a member of the panel and send you a somewhat more detailed survey on your areas of interest and of special knowledge. Then you’ll be on board, helping FPM help your colleagues across the country.
Robert Edsall is editor-in-chief of Family Practice Management.
Conflicts of interest: none reported.
Copyright © 2004 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions