Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Monday, March 11, 2019 at 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

A new general medical journal for the 21st century, focusing on innovation in health and medical research

Latest Submissions Open for Peer Review

A new feature on the JMIR website, open peer review articles, allows JMIR users to sign themselves up as peer reviewers for specific articles currently considered by the Journal (in addition to author- and editor-selected reviewers). The list below shows recently submitted articles where submitting authors have not opted-out of the open peer-review experiment and where the editor has not made a decision yet. (Note that this feature is for reviewing specific articles - if you just want to sign up as reviewer (and wait for the editor to contact you if articles match your interests), please sign up as reviewer using your profile).
To assign yourself to an article as reviewer, you must have a user account on this site (if you don't have one, register for a free account here) and be logged in (please verify that your email address in your profile is correct). Add yourself as a peer reviewer to any article by clicking the '+Peer-review Me!+' link under each article. Full instructions on how to complete your review will be sent to you via email shortly after. Do not sign up as peer-reviewer if you have any conflicts of interest (note that we will treat any attempts by authors to sign up as reviewer under a false identity as scientific misconduct and reserve the right to promptly reject the article and inform the host institution).
The standard turnaround time for reviews is currently 2 weeks, and the general aim is to give constructive feedback to the authors and/or to prevent publication of uninteresting or fatally flawed articles. Reviewers will be acknowledged by name if the article is published, but remain anonymous if the article is declined.

The abstracts on this page are unpublished studies - please do not cite them (yet). If you wish to cite them/wish to see them published, write your opinion in the form of a peer-review!

Tip: Include the RSS feed of the JMIR submissions on this page on your iGoogle homepage, blog, or desktop RSS reader to stay informed about current submissions!

JMIR Submissions under Open Peer Review

↑ Grab this Headline Animator


If you follow us on Twitter, we will also announce new submissions under open peer-review there.


Titles/Abstracts of Articles Currently Open for Review


Titles/Abstracts of Articles Currently Open for Review:

  • Background: When making decisions regarding their own health, patients are affected by a variety of influencing factors. The attending physician plays a particularly important role in this context. This also applies in situations that are preference-sensitive and in which therefore the needs and wishes of the patient should be particularly acknowledged. The influence of physicians can emanate both from their statements and from their physical presence. Objective: This study examined the influence of physicians’ recommendations and their gender on the decision-making process in a preference-sensitive situation. The participants were asked to imagine a hypothetical scenario in which they themselves suffered from a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Methods: The participants (n=202) received general information on the ACL and on treatment options for an ACL rupture (surgical treatment vs. physiotherapeutic treatment). They were explicitly informed that both treatment options showed the same treatment success in the medical research literature, and that this was therefore a preference-sensitive decision situation. Subsequently, the participants indicated their decision for a treatment option, their certainty and satisfaction regarding their decision, and their attitude toward the two treatment options. The participants were then randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (physician’s recommendation: surgery vs. physiotherapy) x 2 (physician’s gender: female vs. male) design. They watched a video with a still picture of a drawn female or male doctor and with the audio track of a medical consultation with a female or male voice. They received further information about the treatment options and the female or male doctor’s recommendation for one option. The participants then indicated again their decision, certainty, satisfaction, and attitude. They also assessed the physician’s professional and social competence. Results: We found that the participants changed their decision in the direction of the physician’s recommendation (P<.001). The data also showed that certainty (P<.001) and satisfaction (P<.001) regarding the decision increased more strongly if the physician’s recommendation was in line with the participant’s prior attitude than if the recommendation was contrary to the participant’s prior attitude. Finally, we found that participants’ attitude toward the recommended treatment became more positive (surgery recommendation: P<.001; physiotherapy recommendation: P<.001). However, we found no influence of the physician’s gender on participants’ decision, attitude, or competence assessment. Conclusions: This research indicates that physicians should be careful with recommendations when aiming for shared decisions, as they might influence patients even if the patients have been made aware that they should take their personal preferences into account. This could be particularly problematic if the doctor’s recommendation is not in line with the patient’s preferences, as this contradiction may lead to less certainty and satisfaction regarding the decision. Clinical Trial: The study was pre-registered on the pre-registration platform AsPredicted (aspredicted.org) before we began data collection (registration number: #12946).

  • Background: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been used to manage many inflammatory skin conditions. Nevertheless, retinopathy remains its most significant adverse effect. The American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) recommends baseline ophthalmologic screening in the first year of HCQ treatment. However, a recent study found an inadequate awareness of the recommendations. Furthermore, limited data are available regarding the implementation of the recommendations among dermatologists. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess dermatologists’ adherence to recommendations pertaining to their current practice regarding HCQ toxicity detection. Methods: A self-administrated questionnaire was distributed between February 2, 2018, to May 4, 2018 among members of the Saudi Society of Dermatology. The questionnaire was designed by Shulman et al. Consisted of demographics-related questions and questions pertaining to each physician’s routine practice about the follow-up of HCQ-treated patients. Results: A total of 76 dermatologists completed the questionnaire. We achieved a response rate of 62.54%. More than half (43 [56.6%]) were male. Furthermore, more than half (41 [53.9%]) reported treating 1-3 patients with HCQ during the last year.Furthermore, two-thirds (47 [61.8%]) reported screening patients before initiating HCQ treatment. Regarding follow-up recommendations, 45 (59.2%) reported “yearly after starting treatment” for no-risk patients, while 72 (94.7%) reported “yearly within 5 years of treatment” for at-risk patients. Data were considered significant at P < 0.05. All analysis was performed by using SPSS, version 20 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Conclusions: Saudi dermatologists are not well informed about some aspects of the latest recommendations regarding screening for HCQ toxicity in terms of tests, follow-up timing, cessation of the drug, and causative agents. Therefore, we recommend conducting more studies in Saudi Arabia to determine the adherence of more physicians to the AAO recommendations. Furthermore, patient education regarding HCQ toxicity and increasing patient awareness is recommended for effective and safe HCQ use.