Peer review process
Manuscripts submitted to OJS-AMP will be presented and placed under consideration of the Editorial Committee, which is constituted by healthcare professionals, members of renowned research institutions. The Editorial Committee will decide whether the manuscript is accepted for entering the editorial process under these circumstances: 1) if it is in line with its editorial line; 2) if it fits well into AMP sections; and 3) if it brings new information, has a sound methodology with the problem under investigation, and if it has been properly written; then it may go to the peer review process. If that is not the case, the submitted material will not be accepted and it will be returned to the author(s).
Peer review aims to guarantee the quality of the papers to be published. This is a double-blinded review. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise in a particular area (proven through their publications and their academic achievements), or according to their expertise on methodological issues (i.e. biostatistics, epidemiology specialists). This review is ad honorem. Every reviewer has the obligation of declaring every possible conflict of interest regarding the paper to be reviewed and inhibit himself/herself from the review; also, he/she should maintain confidentiality with respect to the data included n the paper. The reviewer is an external professional, independent from AMP.
Rating may be as follows: a) accepted with no modifications; b) may be published, with minor observations; c) may be published, with major observations; d) should not be published. Also, the reviewer may suggest the paper is published in a different section of AMP (i.e., as an original paper instead of a short communication).
Taking into account the reviewers’ observations, the Editorial Committee will finally decide whether the paper may be published, if it is not approved, or if it is necessary to send a document with objections/observations to the author(s).
Review formats (download PDF)
Response to observations
In case it has been decided that the manuscript may go to the peer review process, and when reviewers’ conclusions become available, authors should respond to observations in the following way:
The author will send observation withdrawal including the following: 1) a corrected version of the manuscript, showing change control, and 2) a letter detailing each one of the observations made, his/her response to such observations and actions taken. An inadequate response of such observations may become a reason for requesting additional clarification and even for rejecting the manuscript. AMP may resend the corrected manuscript to a reviewer before considering it for publication.
Should the author not respond within the established time period or of he/she does not send a letter detaining his/her response to each requested objection/observation, the manuscript will be rejected.
The average lasting time for the editorial process (from reception up to the final decision of the Editorial Committee) may last between two to four months, depending on the review process and the authors’ response.
Once edition is over, the paper will be sent for diagrammation. Afterwards, the diagrammed paper will be sent to the author(s) so they may verify that it corresponds to the final approved text, and then finally they may give their approval for publication. Should authors not respond within the time framework established by AMP for this purpose, this final version will be deemed as accepted.