Manuscript review and evaluation process

PEER EVALUATION PROCESS

Initial Review

Upon submission, an initial review will be conducted where the assigned editor will evaluate whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's thematic scope, relevance, and adherence to publication guidelines. The editor will also assess the quality of the metadata and the functionality of the ORCID identifier (ensuring complete and accessible data for all authors).

Peer Review

After approving the manuscript for the editorial process, the editor will assign it to two reviewers, selecting one of the following modalities based on the authors' declaration:

  • Double-blind: The reviewers are unaware of the authors' identities, and vice versa.

  • Open: The reviewers and authors know each other's identities and may interact. This modality will only be used if the authors explicitly consent.

The purpose of peer review is twofold: first, to decide whether or not to publish the reviewed article; and second, to ensure adequate scientific critique. Authors must provide recommendations and opinions on the research results they present. To this end, reviewers with experience in different specialties and topics will determine both the validity of the ideas and results and their impact on the world of medical sciences.

The journal will also employ experts external to the editorial team, selected to review and assess the originality, novelty, relevance, and methodological quality of all manuscripts received. In the event of limited availability of reviewers, authors are allowed to suggest suitable scientists, optimizing editorial management without compromising rigor.

After the article has been reviewed, the journal editor will send a communication to the authors regarding the acceptance of the work for publication in the journal.

Rejection decisions are final, and the author is free to submit the work to the criteria of another publication.

Accepted works may require clarification during the editing process; these must be requested directly by the Editor.

Evaluation System

Following the initial review, the manuscript will either be accepted for peer review, rejected, or require initial revisions. In the latter case, the revised manuscript will be re-evaluated and either accepted for peer review or rejected. This initial review and decision must be completed within 4 to 6 weeks.

If the manuscript is accepted for peer review, two specialists in the relevant field (at least two) will be assigned as reviewers. These reviewers may be external to the authors' institution or even from a different country. They will have one week to accept the review invitation. If there is no response within a week, a second invitation will be sent. If there is still no response after another week, the invitation will be canceled, and a new reviewer will be contacted.

Once the review is accepted, the reviewer will have three weeks to complete the evaluation and provide an editorial recommendation. If no response is received within three weeks, a reminder will be sent. If there is still no response after one additional week, the invitation will be canceled, and a new reviewer will be assigned.

Reviewers must follow the guidelines for evaluating articles based on their type. These guidelines consist of two parts: one addressing the quality criteria of the manuscript, and the other outlining the reviewer's final verdict. Reviewers may include detailed justifications for their evaluations as well as recommendations for improving the content.

The editor will assess the peer review results and prepare a decision (conclusions) based on the reviewers' feedback. If necessary, the editor may send the manuscript to another specialist. The final decision, thoroughly justified, will be communicated to the authors as promptly as possible and may include one of the following outcomes:
a) Accept without modifications;
b) Accept with minor revisions (publishable with edits);
c) Return for major revisions and re-evaluation;
d) Reject (not publishable).

If major or minor revisions are requested, the authors must complete the changes within two weeks if they wish to continue the process. If they disagree with the revisions, they must provide a scientifically grounded explanation. Failure to respond may result in the manuscript being withdrawn from the editorial process and archived.

Accepted manuscripts may require clarifications during editing, which will be requested directly by the editor. Failure to respond may lead to the manuscript's exclusion from the scheduled issue. Authors must also review and approve proofs within one week of receiving them; otherwise, the editorial team reserves the right to make any necessary adjustments to ensure the highest publication quality.

Quality Control of Evaluation Reports

Quality control of the evaluation reports issued by experts is an essential process to ensure rigor, objectivity, and consistency in the peer review process. The Editorial Board, as the body responsible for editorial oversight, conducts this verification to ensure that the evaluations meet the academic and ethical standards established by the journal. This procedure allows for:

  • Validating the robustness of the reviews, ensuring that the assessments are well-founded, clear, and provide constructive feedback to the authors.

  • Maintaining impartiality by detecting potential biases or inconsistencies in the reviewers' opinions.

  • Standardizing criteria by aligning evaluations with editorial policies and the publication's quality requirements.

  • Optimizing decision-making, enabling the Editorial Board to issue final verdicts based on reliable and thorough reviews.

Publication Timeline

MedEst Magazine must publish the accepted original within a period of less than one year from its submission date to the journal, although the result of the first evaluation will be made within a period of no more than 60 days. The platform must be systematically updated every 15 or 21 days with the articles ready for publication in this period..

Final Clarifications

Each regular issue will be curated based on editorial criteria to balance the relevance and originality of contributions with the diversity of topics covered.