The Karma system is currently undergoing maintenance (Monday, January 29, 2018).
The maintenance period has been extended to 8PM EST.

Karma Credits will not be available for redeeming during maintenance.

E-collection 'eHealth Service, Product, Resource Reviews'

Guidelines for Electronic Resources Reviews Revised December 2009 The purpose of the new electronic resources reviews section in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) is to provide critical appraisals of electronic products and services that assist health care consumers and health professionals to select resources to manage or improve health. The focus is on consumer health informatics products, i.e. applications that have a direct interface to the consumer (although many of these products also have interfaces to health professionals, EMRs etc.). We have two different pathways of soliciting/getting reviews: developer/company-sponsored vs author sponsored. First, for "developer/company sponsored" reviews, the manufacturer, developer, or distributor of a service or product submits a description of a product/service (with access codes, if required) to JMIR, and the journal editor will try to find a reviewer. Whether or not a product/service/ressource is being reviewed is at the discretion of the editor. SUBMISSION AND (in case of review + publication) PUBLICATION FEES ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SPONSORING DEVELOPER/COMPANY. The sponsor has no influence on the content of the review. Second, author- or journal-sponsored reviews, publication fees are the responsibility of the submitting author (or are subsidized by the journal). We require that the author has no conflicts of interests, in particular no relationships (financial or otherwise) to the developer, manufacturer, or distributor of the product/service. Reviewers will evaluate many types of resources such as websites, databases, research and reference tools, educational instruments, online behavior change programs, iphone/mobile phone applications, personal health record (PHR) systems and PHR platforms. Web-based and mobile phone resources are the primary focus of reviews, though innovative hardware and consumer devices are included as appropriate. To be reviewed, resources must be readily accessible for use by consumers, preferably in multiple locations and jurisdictions. We prefer to have reviews of products which have a potentially large impact, and are not only used locally, e.g. products which are launched by influential corporations. We also prefer to focus on new products (launched within the last 12 months or so). Some comparative information (competitor products and services) is useful and appreciated, although the focus should be on a single product or service. (Major comparative evaluation studies should be submitted as JMIR articles rather than reviews). The following guidelines are adapted from JMLA’s Electronic Resource Review guidelines http://www.webcitation.org/5mMZX6v7D. As with book reviews, electronic resources reviews should include a general description of the resource, the intended audience, and its good and bad points. The reviewer should include sufficient description to give others a clear idea of the purpose of the resource (include 1-2 screenshots), its major features, the accessibility and usability of the resource, the quality of the accompanying documentation and/or the effectiveness of the resource if tested in evaluation/research studies. Below is a list of some of the items to consider when writing reviews; not all items may be appropriate for all resources. • purpose • general description (also mention the reviewed version here) • contents (with screenshot) • intended audience • major features • accessibility (costs?) • usability • advantages / strong points • deficiencies and disadvantages, weak points • technological administration issues • review and critical appraisal of any effectiveness studies or other research published about the specific resource (if any); discuss possible impact on health services, health policy, public health, if any • timeliness • brief comparison to other similar products • rate the application on a Medicine 2.0 rating scale as defined below If the reviewed resource is web-accessible, then please create snapshots using webcitation.org. Reviews should be double-spaced and typed and normally should not exceed two to three pages in length (four pages is the maximum). Reviews exceeding four pages, double-spaced, eleven-point type may be edited for length. The number of photos, figures, illustrations, and tables is limited to one per review. The following elements (when available or applicable) should be included in the bibliographic information at the beginning of the review: * title (including version number) * date of publication * ISBN, ISSN, and/or URL * author or editor (last name, first name, and/or initials) * publisher with electronic and postal contact information * price (or pricing structure) * technical requirements Examples: Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP). Jon Brassey, TRIP Database, 12 Llansannor Drive, Cardiff, United Kingdom, CF10 4AW. jon@tripdatabase.com; http://www.tripdatabase.com/index.html; free Website. Evidence Matters. Evidence Matters, 78 St-Joseph West #209, Montreal, QC, H2T 2P4, Canada; 866.843.0756; ContactUs@EvidenceMatters.com; http://www.evidencematters.com; institutional subscriptions only, contact for pricing. At the end of the review, include: * reviewer's full name * abbreviations of any advanced academic degrees, professional degrees, or certifications (e.g., MLS, PhD, MD, RN, AHIP) * email address * institutional affiliation, city, and state (do not abbreviate) Examples: Richard Nollan, email@ut.edu, University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee Carolyn M. Brown, brown@emory.edu, Health Sciences Center Library, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia Conflicts of Interest. State any actual or perceived conflicts of interest here. For electronic resource reviews we require that author add the following statement: “The author(s) of this review certify that they have no relationship (financial, spousal, or otherwise) to the developer or sales agents of the product/service reviewed.” References. For electronic resource reviews there is a strict reference limit of 5. References in electronic resources reviews including cited URLs (which should be webcited) should conform to JMIR/AMA style. See Reference Style in the Information for Authors and References on the JMIR site for further information. The editors reserve the right to make editorial changes if these changes do not affect the overall content of the review. Substantive changes will be discussed with reviewers. The editors reserve the right to reject reviews that are deemed unsatisfactory in quality. The JMIR requires authors to sign the copyright license agreement and disclosure form in case of acceptance; it is the responsibility of the first author to ensure that coauthors sign and submit the forms.

Advertisement
Advertisement