Editorial Process Step by Step
- Registration in OJS as author and reader.
- Requirements prior to submission:
• Have a public and complete ORCID
• Prepare the main document in Verdana 12 pt font, single line spacing
• Complete the WAME Checklist - Manuscript submission:
• How to complete metadata (institutional affiliation: institution, province, country)
• How to upload the manuscript and the checklist - Initial review (up to 30 days):
• Evaluation of thematic suitability, compliance with editorial guidelines, metadata quality, ORCID, and checklist - Open peer review:
• Assignment to two reviewers
• Reviewer’s acceptance of the review request
• Deadlines: 3 weeks for review, with reminders sent afterward if no response
• Assignment of another reviewer if no response is received
• Possible editorial decisions: acceptance, minor/major revisions, rejection - Author’s response:
• 2-week deadline to make requested corrections
• Consequences of no response (manuscript will be archived) - Editing and proofreading:
• Intervention by the Copy Editor and Managing Editor
• Possible requests for clarification - Proofreading and final approval
- Online publication (continuous publication model)
- Post-publication: errata, retractions
Peer Review Process
Initial Review
Upon receipt of a submission, an initial screening is conducted by the assigned editor, who evaluates whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's thematic scope, its relevance, and its adherence to publication guidelines. The editor also assesses the quality of metadata, verifies that authors have complete and public ORCID identifiers, and confirms the inclusion of the WAME Manuscript Checklist.
Peer Review
Once the editor confirms that the manuscript meets the formal requirements to proceed with the editorial process, the manuscript is assigned to two reviewers under an open peer review modality, in which reviewers are aware of the authors' identities and vice versa, allowing for direct exchange between parties.
Opinion Articles and Letters to the Editor are reviewed by a single editor, who decides whether to continue or discontinue the editorial process after evaluating: the relevance of the content; clarity and focus of the main message; current significance and contribution to the medical field; grounding in scientific evidence; logical coherence and argumentative structure; objectivity and professional tone; terminological precision and correct use of medical language; and appropriateness for the journal's target audience.
Guidelines for Reviewers
Reviewer guidelines provide the criteria necessary to assess whether a submission is suitable for publication in the journal. They may include specific instructions for preparing an effective and constructive review. When submitting their evaluation, reviewers have access to two open text fields: the first labeled "For the author and editor" and the second "For the editor only".
Reviewers must use the Revista Médica Electrónica Review Guidelines and may consult study-type-specific resources available at: http://www.equator-network.org/library/spanish-resources-recursos-en-espanol/
Review Outcomes
The peer review process serves two purposes: (1) to evaluate the manuscript's suitability for publication, and (2) to provide constructive scientific critique. Authors are expected to consider recommendations derived from reviewers' comments. To this end, the journal relies on experienced reviewers across diverse specialties and thematic areas, who assess both the validity of ideas and results and their potential impact within the medical sciences.
When reviewers disagree on an editorial decision, the editor may take one or more of the following actions to resolve the situation:
• Critically evaluate each reviewer's arguments: The editor carefully analyzes the comments from each reviewer, weighing the strength of their critiques and suggestions, and makes a decision based on expert judgment.
• Request a third opinion (additional reviewer): If disagreement is substantial (e.g., one recommends acceptance and another rejection), the editor may invite an independent third reviewer to provide an additional evaluation and break the tie.
• Consult the Editorial Board or a senior editor: In complex or controversial cases, the editor may seek guidance from other Editorial Board members or an experienced editor.
• Request author responses: The editor may ask the author to respond to all comments—including contradictory ones—and make appropriate revisions. The revised manuscript is then re-evaluated to determine whether improvements are sufficient to proceed.
• Make an intermediate decision: For example, the editor may opt for major revision even if one reviewer recommended rejection, provided the editor believes critical issues can be addressed through adequate corrections.
• Transfer the manuscript to another journal: If reviewers not only disagree but also question the manuscript's fit for the journal, the editor may suggest transferring it to a more suitable publication within the same editorial consortium.
In all cases, the editor retains final responsibility for the decision, ensuring it is fair, transparent, and consistent with scientific standards and the journal's scope.
When reviewers agree on an editorial decision, the editor will issue one of the following outcomes:
• Accepted without revisions: The manuscript meets all journal criteria and requires no changes. This outcome is uncommon in practice.
• Accepted with minor revisions (light revision): The manuscript is generally sound but requires small adjustments (e.g., clarifications, wording corrections, or formatting). These changes are typically verified by the editor alone, not by reviewers.
• Revised and re-evaluated (major revision): The manuscript has potential but requires substantial changes (methodological, analytical, interpretive, or structural). After revisions, the manuscript is returned to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation.
• Rejected with possibility of resubmission: The manuscript presents significant issues, but the journal permits resubmission after thorough rewriting. Resubmitted manuscripts are treated as new submissions.
• Definitively rejected: The manuscript fails to meet scientific standards, contains serious errors, or falls outside the journal's scope. It is not accepted, and resubmission is not invited.
These decisions depend on scientific content, methodological quality, originality, relevance, and adherence to editorial guidelines.
Post-Review Communication
After evaluation, the journal editor will notify the authors regarding acceptance of the manuscript for publication.
Rejection decisions are final and non-appealable; authors remain free to submit the work to another scientific journal.
Accepted manuscripts may require clarifications during the copyediting process, which will be requested directly by the Editor.
