MedSLP Collective
Editorial Review Process

We maintain high standards for our educational content through:

  1. A rigorous editorial review process for all resources and webinars
  2. Required citation of reputable, original sources, and image attribution
  3. Single or double-blind reviews by qualified experts, which one professor noted was “the most rigorous process I’ve ever been through”

Resources are clinically focused documents and/or videos that synthesize evidence-based information for practical use. They range from topic overviews, in-depth tutorials, or video demos designed for immediate clinical application. While not original research, they provide comprehensive coverage that single research articles often cannot achieve.

Our review process ensures quality:

CONTENT REVIEW

  • Content reviewers examine mechanics, formatting, and APA style
  • Reviewers evaluate material’s relevance to membership needs
  • All claims must be supported by reputable sources
w

EDITORIAL REVIEWING

  • Conducted by experts (PhDs, EdDs, or experienced clinicians) in the resource topic areas
  • Evaluates accuracy, literature integration, and clinical relevance

SUBMISSION PROCESS

  1. Contributors coordinate with Content Manager and receive contribution guidelines
  2. Initial review (R1) assesses best practices, literature integration, and cited materials
  3. Managing Editor reviews and recommends revisions
  4. Contributors make changes within 2-4 weeks
  5. Second review (R2) verifies improvements
  6. Final editorial review before publication with reference details and contributor and image attribution

Unlike many other companies, we require review of all CEU content to ensure quality, relevance, and unbiased information for SLPs.