Peer Review
Scientific manuscripts are evaluated by external specialists through a double-anonymized peer review system, also known as double-blind review. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
Authors must submit an anonymized manuscript without names, affiliations, identifiable acknowledgements, or information in the file properties that could reveal authorship. The editorial team applies reasonable measures to reduce indirect identification during the review process.
As a general rule, each manuscript is sent to two reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area and without significant conflicts of interest. The editor may request additional assessments, including methodological, statistical, or ethical review, when reports differ substantially or the nature of the study requires it.
Reviewers assess, among other aspects:
- Scientific originality and relevance.
- Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope.
- Clarity and relevance of the objectives.
- Appropriateness of the study design and methods.
- Quality of the analysis and presentation of results.
- Strength of the discussion and conclusions.
- Compliance with ethical requirements.
- Transparency, reproducibility, and clarity of the manuscript.
According to the research design and article type, reviewers may use the applicable international reporting guidelines to assess the completeness and transparency of the study report. These include STROBE for observational studies and the current version of CONSORT for randomized clinical trials. When applicable, the reporting checklist submitted by the authors will be made available to reviewers as supplementary material. Compliance with a reporting guideline does not replace the critical assessment of methodological quality, validity of the results, or scientific relevance of the manuscript.
Reviewers must accept only manuscripts for which they have sufficient expertise, disclose any conflicts of interest, preserve confidentiality, and provide objective, respectful, and well-supported comments. They must not use the manuscript’s content, data, or ideas before publication.
The usual period for submitting a review report is up to 30 days, unless the editor establishes a different deadline according to the complexity of the manuscript.
Reviewers’ recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not determine it automatically. The final decision rests with the responsible editor, who considers the quality of the reports, the authors’ responses, and the journal’s editorial policies.
Institutional editorials, issue introductions, obituaries, and other non-research content may be exempt from external peer review. This condition must be clearly identified in the published article.
When a member of the editorial team is an author of a manuscript, that person will be excluded from all involvement in its evaluation. The submission will be managed by an independent editor, and the author will not participate in reviewer selection, deliberation, or the final decision.
