Peer Reviewers

On this page
Thank you, peer reviewers
Become a reviewer
Obtain CME for peer review
AI use

Quality peer reviews help the FPM editors select articles that are authoritative and useful and add to the literature.

Thank you to our peer reviewers

The 2025 FPM peer reviewers

Become a reviewer

FPM manuscripts undergo a double-blinded review by a panel that includes members of the FPM Editorial Advisory Board, family physicians, or others with expertise or interest in the topic. To become an FPM peer reviewer, visit our ScholarOne manuscript submission and peer-review site: https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/fpm. If you do not already have a ScholarOne ID and password, you will need to select "Create Account." During account creation, you will be prompted to select Areas of Interest and Expertise, which help us pair you with relevant manuscripts.

Obtain CME for peer review

Reviewing manuscripts for journals listed in Medline, including FPM, qualifies for CME credit. The AAFP allows AAFP members to self-report CME credits for each manuscript review they provide, with a maximum of 100 credits earned per three-year reelection cycle. Credit should be claimed commensurate with the length of time it takes to review. To report the credit, go to the AAFP's CME Reporter. From there, select Scholarly Activity under Report Self-Directed Learning Activities. Alternatively, you may download a Reporting Form to report CME by mail.

Use of AI by peer reviewers

Relying on AI-generated content in peer review risks degrading the quality, accuracy, and independence of the review, undermining the intent of the process. Generative AI may be used in a supportive capacity in the review process, provided that a) the reviewer maintains full oversight and b) no manuscript content is uploaded to the AI tool. This policy is consistent with guidance from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which requires reviewers to maintain manuscript confidentiality and prohibits uploading manuscripts to software or AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured.

When a reviewer has used a generative AI tool, they must include a statement in the “Comments to Authors” section of the review, using the following suggested format:

During my review, I used [NAME OF AI TOOL] in order to [REASON]. I verify that I personally reviewed the content and take full responsibility for my critical assessment and feedback on this manuscript.