Editorial Process - Flowchart

In the e-Journal Praxis de la Medicina (e-RPM), each article undergoes independent peer review by two reviewers using a double-blind method. The decision to publish, revise, or reject the article is based on the transparency of the reviewers' reports and suggestions.

The process begins when the author receives confirmation of manuscript receipt. This notification indicates whether the manuscript has entered the peer review process or has been rejected. The decision is based on formal aspects, thematic relevance, and originality.

The Editor then sends the manuscript to the first reviewer for double-blind peer review. Once the first review is complete, the author is notified of the result. The author must address the suggestions and resubmit the manuscript for a second review.

After review, the editor will make one of four (4) decisions based on the reviewers' recommendations:

Accept submission: the submission will be accepted without revisions.

Revisions required: the submission will be accepted after minor revisions have been made.

Resubmit for review: The submission needs to be revised, but with significant changes, it may be accepted. However, it will require a second round of review.
Submission rejection: The submission will not be published in the journal.
Once the reviewers have submitted their reports, the editor may decide to publish without alterations, consider minor or major changes, or reject the manuscript. If “Publish without alterations” is recommended, it is accepted and a DOI is assigned. If “Minor changes” are suggested, the authors must submit a final copy with the corrections. If “Major changes” are recommended, the authors must revise the manuscript within two months. Rejection is immediate if the editor recommends it or if two reviewers recommend it. The editor cannot review their own manuscript to ensure impartiality.

The peer review process is double-blind; in other words, the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are, and the authors do not have access to information about who the reviewers are. Without the important contributions made by the peer reviewers, publication in the journal would not be possible.