Reviewer Guidelines
The e-Journal Praxis de la Medicina (e-RPM) has as its fundamental mission to guarantee the quality, reliability, and integrity of the medical and scientific advances it publishes. To this end, it uses a double-blind peer review process, ensuring strict anonymity between authors and reviewers throughout the editorial process to avoid bias and guarantee objectivity.
1. Commitment to Suitability and Ethics
We appreciate your valuable collaboration in the peer review process. If, after a preliminary reading of the manuscript, you believe that for academic reasons, conflicts of interest, or a lack of technical expertise, you are not the appropriate person to judge the quality of the work, we ask that you inform the publisher and return the article to the e-Journal Praxis de la Medicina.
2. High-Impact Evaluation Protocol
The evaluation must be anonymous, confidential, objective, critical, and well-founded. In line with Q1 standards, reviewers are required to provide reasoned and constructive feedback, avoiding dichotomous (yes/no) responses.
Critical Evaluation Dimensions:
• Abstract Structure: Does it accurately state the research purposes, the most relevant clinical or experimental results, and the most impactful conclusions?
• Introduction and Research Problem: Does it concisely describe the state of the art and present clear objectives? Does it identify a specific problem in the medical field and the manuscript's original contribution to that field?
• Methodological Rigor and Replicability: Are the methods (clinical, theoretical, or experimental) thoroughly described in the Materials and Methods section? Does the presentation allow for the exact replication of the study by other researchers?
• Results Analysis: Is the results analysis technically sound, clear, and respectful of the authors' intellectual independence?
• Conclusions and Scientific Support: Are the conclusions intrinsically linked to the objectives and fully supported by the evidence from the results? • Innovation and Contribution to Knowledge: Is the article sufficiently innovative and relevant to the advancement of medical practice to warrant publication in this journal?
• Narrative and Visual Quality: Do the style and writing meet the standards of excellence for scientific communication? Do the tables and figures present essential information clearly, concisely, and with high visual quality?
• Critical Apparatus (References): Are the references appropriate and up-to-date according to the focus of the work? Have any key documents or fundamental clinical evidence been omitted?
3. Preservation of Anonymity (Double-Blind Review)
It is imperative to avoid providing personal information (name, signature, or email addresses) within the body of the review. If you choose to comment directly on the original manuscript, you must ensure that you modify the username in the file properties to maintain the integrity of the blind review process.
4. Monitoring Scientific Integrity
We ask our reviewers to immediately inform the editorial board if they suspect any form of plagiarism, scientific fraud, data manipulation, or unethical treatment of study subjects.
5. Editorial Recommendation
Upon completing your technical report, you must select one of the following final recommendations:
1. Accept the submission: Publication without changes.
2. Accept with suggested changes: Minor adjustments required.
3. Re-evaluate a new version: Substantial changes and a second round of peer review are required.
4. Reject the submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's minimum quality standards.
