Process for editorial management

The editorial management process encompasses from the time a manuscript is received up to its potential publication. Here are some additional details in this respect:

Manuscript reception. The author sends his/her request for his/her paper to be published through the OJS-AMP system website. The system assigns a code for the material and inserts it in a schedule in order to undergo assessment by the Editorial Committee. The editorial assistant systematically assigns papers to fellow editors on a first come, first served basis. The system automatically establishes the ‘Submission’ (‘Envío’) status of the submitted material.

Average time for a response: Seven days for receiving a communication from the assistant editor.

Assessment by the Editorial Committee. The fellow editor in charge performs he first review of the manuscript. If formal requisites are complied with (format, word count, reference system, etc.), he/she will review the manuscript and he/she will present his/her views on it in the next ordinary meeting of the Editorial Committee. The system screen will display the words ‘Under review’ (‘Revisión’). If this is not the case, the submitted manuscript may be rejected and the reason for that will be stated (the system screen will display the word ‘Rejected’ (‘Rechazado’).

Afterwards, the Editorial Committee evaluates the manuscript and determines if it complies with AMP assessment criteria and requests an evaluation by external reviewers (peer review). In case of non-compliance, the manuscript is rejected.

Average time for a response: Seven to fifteen days for the evaluation by the Editorial Committee.

Peer review process: In this stage, external reviewers are invited for assessing the manuscript. They perform a specialized evaluation of its contents. They are selected on the basis of their competence in the particular topics to be reviewed.

External reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to its originality, pertinence, and relevance. The assessment may end suggesting accepting the manuscript, making some observations and requesting clarification, so the manuscript may be reassessed later, after having responded to the identified objections, or, otherwise, the material may be rejected.

This review stage has an established time period which may take from one week to one month, depending on the reviewer(s)’ availability. If there is an even number of reviewers, the opinion of an additional reviewer will be requested. The system screen will display the words ‘Under review’ (‘Revisión’).

Average time for a response: An initial 15-day time period will be established, although this may be extended up to 2 months, depending on how complex the topic may be or on the availability of specialized reviewers. This time period may be extended once again if a second review round is required.

Objection withdrawal stage: Observations by external reviewers and/or editors will be sent to the corresponding author of the manuscript (the one who submitted the paper), and he/she will be given a fixed time period for withdrawing these observations/objections. This may take up to 2 weeks, but it may be extended, depending on the manuscript author(s). The system screen will display the words ‘Under review’ (‘Revisión’).

After the response from the author(s), the fellow editor in charge verifies that the observations are correctly withdrawn (response letter properly filled, document with control change version, etc.) and submits this corrected version of the manuscript to the Editorial Committee. This stage may be repeated more than one time.

Average time for a response: Fifteen days as a minimum, but this may be extended if agreed so by the reviewer and the Editorial Committee. This time period may be extended once again if a second review round is required.

Final decision by the Editorial Committee: After having reviewed the corrected version of the manuscript, the Editorial Committee decides whether it is accepted or rejected. If accepted, the manuscript enters the edition stage (the system screen will display ‘Editorial’); if rejected, a letter supporting this decision will be sent to the author(s).

Average time for a response: Seven to fifteen days.

Paper edition: This is the stage where the text is edited in order to adapt it to AMP style or for improving its wording. If necessary, the fellow editor in charge may communicate with the author(s) in order to withdraw some observations.

Average time for a response: Fifteen to thirty days, depending on the amount of corrections necessary.

Design, layout and submission for prepress proofing: In this stage, the manuscript is given a format according to AMP style, and a prepress proofing final version is prepared. This document, which is in PDF format, is sent to the corresponding author so he/she may approve it. If there is no response to this communication, the Editorial Committee will assume it has been automatically approved, so no other changes will be made in the final version. The time for approving this prepress proofing is up to five days, but this may vary, with a prior communication, according to the discretion of the Editorial Committee.

Average time for a response: Seven days for submitting the prepress proofing version. This may take up to five days when waiting for the final response by the author(s).

Final version and publication of a new paper: This is the last phase of the editorial process. The paper is published in the OJS-AMP system and it becomes available in its complete version. Afterwards, other formats for the paper will be made available (XML; HTML, etc.) in order to submit the paper to databases where AMP is indexed and its profile may be improved.

Average time for a response: Fifteen days for the paper to appear in the OJS-AMP website.

 

Additional specifications

Initial evaluation

Articles submitted to the OJS-AMP will be presented and posted to consideration of the Editorial Committee, which is made up of health professionals, members of leading institutions in investigation. The Editorial Committee will decide if the article is accepted to enter the editorial process when 1) corresponds to your line editorial and 2) is within one of the sections it publishes; later and 3) it has the characteristics of being novel, it has methodology consistent with the problem investigated and is written adequately; and will move it to the peer review process. In case Otherwise, the submission will not be accepted and returned to the author.

Any manuscript that includes a member of the AMP Committee as the author is not exempt from complying with the requirements specified in the instructions and its editorial process will be the same as any other Shipping; However, the latter will be carried out without the participation of the involved member; that is, you will not be able to participate in any session that deal with the manuscript (decision, revision) and you won't even know the name of assigned reviewers. In addition, the members of the Editorial Committee must declare potential conflicts of interest regarding said article, inhibiting himself from making decisions.

Peer review

Peer review is intended to ensure the quality of the articles to publish. This review is double blind. Selection of the reviewers are based on their expertise on the subject (proven through their publications and academic degree), or by their expertise in methodological issues (e.g. specialists in Biostatistics, Epidemiology, etc.). The review is ad honorem. Every reviewer has the obligation to declare possible conflicts of interest regarding the item ordered and inhibited from review; In addition, you must save the privacy of the data contained in the article.

The qualification can be concluded in: a) accepted without modifications; b) publishable with minor observations; c) publishable with comments greater; d) not publishable. In addition, the reviewer may recommend the publication of an article, but in another section of the journal (e.g. before original article as short original).

Based on the comments of the reviewers, the Editorial Committee finally decide if the article can be published, its not approval or sending comments to the author.

Response to comments

The author must send the raising of observations including: 1) the article corrected with exchange control and 2) a letter detailing each of the observations made, the response to these and the actions performed by the author. The inappropriate response of the Observations could be criteria for requesting clarification additional and even the non-approval of the article. AMP will be able to return to send the corrected article to a reviewer before considering its post.

The average period of the editorial process (from receipt to final decision of the Editorial Committee) may vary from two to four months, depending on the review process and the authors' response.

Printing tests

Once the edition is finished, the article will be sent to layout. Subsequently, the diagrammed article will be sent to the authors with the so that modifications, reductions or extensions can be made of the text or of the tables and figures, and finally give their approval of publication. When the authors do not respond within the term established by AMP for this step, the final version will be accepted.

English publication

The magazine allows the dissemination of articles accepted for publication (final version) in English. For this, the author must submit the accepted article for publication in English within the two week period.