Peer Review

Peer Review Information

Peer review is open to all current SGIM members. Members may sign up a review for one submission-type per round.

Sign up Here

Key Dates

Scientific Abstracts, Clinical Vignettes, Innovations in Healthcare Delivery and Innovations in Medical Education

October 24, 2023: Peer Review Sign Up Opens
January 10, 2024: 
Peer Review Sign Up Deadline
January 12, 2024
: Peer Review Opens

January 26, 2024: Peer Review Closes

Peer Review is open to current SGIM members only. 

Clinical Vignettes

Scientific Abstracts

Innovations in Healthcare Delivery

Innovations in Medical Education

Download peer review instructions

Clinical Vignettes

Peer Review Criteria:

  1. Important Clinical Problem: To what extent does the abstract illustrate an important clinical problem(s) commonly encountered by internists, such as diagnostic, therapeutic, or management dilemma?
  2. Insight into Clinical Practice, Education, or Research: To what extent does the abstract provide insight into clinical practice, education or research in either outpatient or hospital settings?
  3. Relevance to General Internal Medicine: To what extent does the abstract offer a diagnosis, physical examination, or management pearl that is important to general internists?
  4. Quality of Writing: Is the writing clear and organized to effectively communicate findings?

    Download Clinical vignette peer review rubric

    Scientific Abstracts

    Peer Review Criteria:

    1. Importance of the Research Question to General Internists: To what extent does the abstract address a topic that is important and to what degree will the results advance concepts in General Internal Medicine?
    2. Strength and Appropriateness of Methods

      • Is the study design clearly described?

      • Are sampling procedures adequately described, including inclusion and exclusion criteria; is there potential selection bias?

      • Are the measures reliable and valid?

      • Are possible confounding factors addressed?

      • Are the statistical analyses appropriate for the study design, and are they the best that could have been used?

      • Is there discussion of the statistical power?

    3. Validity of Conclusions and Implications

      • Are conclusions clearly stated and justified by the data?

      • Are implications strong enough to influence how clinicians/teachers/researchers “act” in clinical practice, teaching, or future research?

    4. Quality of Writing: is the writing clear and organized to effectively communicate findings?

    Download scientific abstract peer review rubric

    Innovations in Healthcare Delivery

    Peer Review Criteria: 

    1. Relevance/Importance: Is this topic clearly stated, important and relevant to the practice of GIM? Does it fill an unmet need and would implementation lead to an improvement in clinical practice?
    2. Creativity/Originality: How novel is either the problem being addressed or the mechanism of intervention?
    3. Methods: Is the study design, including objectives, target audience, and intervention, clearly described? Are the quantitative or qualitative assessments used appropriate for this innovation?
    4. Findings/Measures of Success: Are measures of success clear? Are the findings to date clearly presented?
    5. Feasibility/Generalizability: Are the organizational context, complexity, cost, and resource utilization appropriately described as appropriate? Are the results generalizable, i.e., could this innovation be implemented at other institutions?


    Innovations in Medical Education

    Peer Review Criteria: 

    1. Objective or Purpose of Innovation: are the objectives/purpose of the Innovation clear, measurable, and appropriate for the target audience?
    2. Appropriate Methods
      • Is the intervention well described? Are teaching method(s) appropriate to meet defined objectives?
      • Are assessment measures adequate to evaluate outcomes? 
      • Do methods use or create a standard that can be replicated?
    3. Evaluation or Measure of Success:
      • Are measures of success appropriate and clear?
      • Are areas for improvement discussed?
      • Are results interpreted accurately?
      • Are conclusions clearly stated and supported?
      • Are implications fully appropriate? 
    4. Degree of Innovation
      • Is this work truly innovative, i.e. do authors show that it is a novel concept or an implementation not done elsewhere?
      • Does it fill an unmet need?
      • Has the innovation been explored or pursued before?
      • Will the innovation fill gaps that may yet be unrealized in the medical education community?
    5. Potential for Broader Impact
      • Is it more than an adaptation to local needs?
      • Is the innovation feasible elsewhere?
      • Does the abstract convey how the innovation can be implemented?
      • Is there reflection on lessons learned, and what may be valuable to others?
      • Will the innovation be simple to adapt to other programs?

    Download IME peer review rubric

    Issues or questions? Contact