Oration submission guidelines
The GMA Annual Session Inauguration Proceedings consist of peer-reviewed Oration. The oration for the annual GMA sessions will be reviewed on the basis of expected quality of the presentation, based on stated claims in the proposed oration, e.g., treatment concept, application of current technology to problems in medicine, introduction of advanced scientific content into undergraduate, graduate, or continuing education.
Following aspects to be considered during the review process:
- QUALITY: Is the paper's topic presented in a manner representative of the high quality expected of research done in Medical Science?
- ACCURACY: Is the material accurate? (This is one of the most important of the criteria). Are the claims of novelty or innovative content backed up and verifiable? Are the statements and analyses made in the paper correct and logically consistent? Do they flow from the analyses or data presented in the body of the paper?
- USEFULNESS: How useful is this material to the Medical Science, whether faculty, clinician, or student? This implies that a reviewer could recommend the paper to be read by a colleague or student, or could use the material him or herself.
- INNOVATION: It is realized that not every paper submitted to the oration must present a brand new invention, development, or theory. However, reviewers will examine papers for novel inventions, or applications of current technology in new ways and in new environments, and such novelty, backed up by the reviewers' assessments in Item #2, should count strongly for the paper. Furthermore, because a large part of the GMA membership consists of those engaged in teaching medical undergraduates, the application or introduction of novel or more advanced scientific concepts and technologies will also be considered to demonstrate innovation.
- Completeness: Is the oration complete? Some authors put a considerable effort into writing an abstract that clearly conveys the work that they have done, while others write an abstract that make it very hard for the reviewer to understand the paper. Clearly this needs to be a consideration in reviews.
