Editorial workflow and review system
The journal's editorial process is carried out with the Open Journal Systems (OJS) software, which guarantees the automated, transparent and auditable registration of all interactions.
Authors should submit their articles only using the journal's platform. For this, they must create a user account per author and log in to access. The platform will request basic information about the article and will ask for the required files to be attached. These files will be required to start the editorial process.
The articles are evaluated through the double-blind peer review system, maintaining the anonymity of the authors and the evaluators throughout the process. The evaluators are external and experts in each thematic area.
The editor will perform an initial evaluation to verify that the submission complies with the journal's requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements will not be considered for review.
Editors are responsible for the quality of the overall content of the publication. They have full responsibility and authority to reject or accept an article; they ensure the quality of the papers and the integrity of the review and publication process. They undertake to maintain the anonymity of the contributors involved.
The editors must ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines, acting if they suspect misconduct to make all reasonable attempts to obtain a solution to the problem.
The journal does not accept trade names in published articles and is not responsible for the opinions expressed by the authors of published articles.
DURATION OF THE ARBITRATION PROCESS
The evaluation period, after the previous steps determined by the editor, is 45 days maximum and the average number of weeks between submission and publication of the article is 16 weeks.
REFEREEING PROCESS
The refereeing process begins with the review of compliance with the instructions for authors given by the journal and the thematic evaluation by the editors. Authors will receive an e-mail indicating the preliminary decision whether to accept or reject the manuscript within 30 days of receipt. If rejected, there will be no return option. If minor corrections are necessary, you will be given 15 days to return the corrected manuscript.
The next step is the submission of manuscripts for double-blind peer review. The external reviewers do not know the identity of the authors and vice versa. The maximum period for evaluation is 30 days. After this period of time the referees can consider the manuscript:
- Publishable without modifications.
- Publishable with minor modifications.
- Publishable with major modifications to be resubmitted and evaluated.
- Not publishable.
Manuscripts will be resubmitted to the authors within a maximum period of 15 days with minor or major modifications anonymously so that they can make corrections within a maximum period of 20 days. No paper will be accepted without all the corrected modifications. If corrections have not been made and submitted within 30 days, the manuscript will be withdrawn and the author will be notified.
It is not guaranteed that articles requested for further revision will be accepted after these corrections if they do not meet the necessary quality standards of the journal. Rejected articles will not be reviewed again.
Acceptance of papers is subject to current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Double publication will be sanctioned with immediate rejection and specific denunciation in the following issue, without prejudice to initiating a process of communication to the institutions to which the authors belong.
SELECTION OF REVIEWERS
Reviewers must keep all information related to the documents as privileged information and subject to confidentiality. Their review will be objective without any personal criticism of the author, and will state their assessment clearly and with supporting arguments.
Reviewers are expressly recommended to use the CARE guidelines checklist in their reviews in order to maintain the quality of the published papers. They will also pay special attention to compliance with the research ethics standards of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
Reviewers should identify relevant bibliographic references that have not been cited in the manuscript.
Reviewers should decline to review any manuscript in which they have conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to the work.
REVIEWER GUIDELINES
The journal believes that authors always put considerable effort into writing a manuscript and that informed scientific criticism should be compatible with respect for the work of others.
When writing your report you should bear in mind that your text will be passed on to the authors. RETIC has decided to follow The CARE Guidelines in Journal of Medical Case Reports and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers in the review of clinical cases.
Before starting the review, consider the following points:
- Read the manuscript, data files and supplementary material thoroughly.
- You may consult with us in case something is not clear or request any missing or incomplete element you need.
- Do not make direct contact with the authors without authorization from the journal.
- Respect the confidentiality of the review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process to your own or others' advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit another.
- If you find any irregularities regarding research or publication ethics, notify the journal.
To perform your review, consider the following points:
Originality: assess whether the manuscript contributes something new that has not been previously or comprehensively addressed in the literature. And if this novel element is really of interest and can induce a change in current clinical practice.
Methodology: The methodology of the articles should always be sound and respond to the questions posed by the authors as the objective of the work, following a valid and appropriate scientific method. Likewise, although the names of the institutions are blinded to preserve the double-blind evaluation process, the methodology must comply with the ethical commitments required for articles of these characteristics.
Discussion and conclusions: Verify that it is not a summary of the results. The discussion should interpret the results of the study and analyze their implications. At the same time, it should be a sincere exposition that does not hide the limitations or possible biases of the study.
References: verify that there are no malicious errors or omissions on the part of the authors.
Other issues: Consistency, appropriate terminology, etc.
REJECTION OF THE PUBLICATION
The contact author will be informed of the rejection of the submitted manuscript, attaching a summary of the reviewers' reports.
