Peer review process
Mediciego adopts two peer review methods: double-blind and open. In the double-blind variant, the reviewers will not receive any identifying data about the origin of the article and the authors will not know who is evaluating their manuscript. In the open modality, the evaluators know the identity of the authors of the article and the authors have references of the reviewers, to facilitate direct communication between them. The reviewers may publish their evaluations of the articles. In the declaration of authorship and originality, the authors must choose the modality to which they adhere.
Upon receipt of the submission, the executive editor reviews and verifies whether the article meets the basic requirements of the journal. If accepted, define and assign, with the Editorial Committee, two referees according to the topic discussed.
Reviewers will be selected based on their scientific, academic and professional level, as well as their experience and knowledge of the subject to be evaluated. All articles submitted for peer review are treated confidentially. Peer reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest when responding to an invitation to review a manuscript, as well as when they share common results with the manuscript.
In cases of conflict of interest, for example, when the reviewer has recently collaborated with the author at the same institution, or when in direct competition with the author, reviewers will not be able to review that author's manuscript.
The review process begins with the executive secretary's verification that the submission requirements have been met (anti-plagiarism control, compliance with checklists, guidelines for authors, declaration of originality and authorship, among other aspects); as a result, the article may be returned to the author, or move on to the actual review with the assignment of peer reviewers, after verifying that there are no conflicts of interest. This stage may take approximately 21 days.
Reviewers will have up to 30 days to record the results of the evaluation. If the reviewers' opinions do not coincide, a third reviewer will be assigned who will have 30 days to make the evaluation. The editorial team will make the final decision, which may be:
Acceptance of the submission. With this decision, the manuscript will move on to the editing process.
Publishable with modifications. Authors will have 30 days to prepare a new version of the manuscript, taking into account the recommendations of the review process, and will replace the previous version through their user account in the same submission, for which they must notify the editor. Once the new version is received, it will go to the second round of review, for which the reviewer has 15 days. If the corrected work has not been received after 30 days, the Editorial Committee may decide to extend the date for another 30 days or archive it, which will be communicated to the first author. If the article is archived and the authors maintain their desire to publish in the journal, they must resubmit it as a new manuscript and make their comments to the editor in the corresponding space in the first step of the submission.
Not publishable. With this decision, the article is withdrawn from the editorial process
If for any reason the author decides to withdraw the article during the review process, he/she must notify the journal's management in writing.
Appeal: Authors may appeal the decision by writing to the editor of the journal if they disagree with the outcome of the review process. This communication should contain the issues of concern regarding the problems identified by the reviewers and editors. Once the appeal has been received, the editors may confirm their decision to reject the manuscript or conduct additional peer review.
The evaluation process will take no more than 90 days.
Forms for article review:
- For original articles
- For brief communications
- For case reports
- For review articles
In conjunction with the peer review guide, it is recommended to use versions of the following review guides: STROBE for observational studies (descriptive and analytical: cross-sectional, case-control and cohort); CONSORT (for randomized clinical trials), PRISMA and PRISMA-E 2012 (for systematic reviews and meta-analyses), CARE (for case reports) and SQUIRE (standards for excellence in reporting quality). Mediciego supports international initiatives to improve the quality of medical reports and adheres to the recommendations and guidelines available on the EQUATOR initiative website (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of Health Research), available at: http://www.equator-network.org/
The Editorial Committee reserves the right to introduce stylistic modifications or to limit the texts as necessary and undertakes to respect the original content. Articles will be published within one year of the date of submission.
