Double-Blind Peer Review

All scientific manuscripts submitted to AMAG undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process. This procedure guarantees anonymity, impartiality and confidentiality throughout the editorial process, ensuring that the identity of the authors remains unknown to the reviewers and vice versa.

To preserve the objectivity of the evaluation, AMAG strives to ensure that reviewers are external specialists to the editorial board and free of any conflicts of interest regarding their assigned manuscripts. The selection of reviewers is conducted based on their academic expertise and research interests.

To guarantee complete anonymity during the review process, the following guidelines are applied:

• Manuscript Anonymization: Authors must remove any direct or indirect references that could reveal their identity within the text, including names, institutional affiliations, grant or funding information, or self-citations that might compromise anonymity.
• Removal of Metadata: Prior to uploading the file to the system, authors must erase all metadata containing personal information from electronic documents (Word or PDF).
• Protected Editorial Management: The editorial board will verify that all files sent to reviewers are completely free of any elements that could identify the authors.

Peer Review Stages

Initial Screening: The General Secretary —and when necessary, the Director— conduct a preliminary technical and thematic review of the manuscript. At this stage, compliance with editorial guidelines, word count, thematic scope, aims, and section requirements are verified. Submissions that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors prior to initiating the peer review process.

Double-Blind Peer Review: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be sent to a minimum of two expert peer reviewers for evaluation under a double-blind modality. Reviewers will issue a reasoned academic report based on criteria such as the appropriateness of the manuscript's length, the relevance and clarity of the title, the quality of the introduction, the soundness of the analysis, coherence and expository clarity, prose, syntax, and spelling, the proper use of sources and references, the consistency of the conclusions, the originality of the work, and its contribution to the field of study.

Review Decisions

Based on the reports received, the editorial board will issue one of the following decisions:

• Acceptance of the manuscript without modifications.
• Acceptance conditional upon minor corrections.
• Request for major corrections and re evaluation by the reviewers.
• Request for an additional evaluation when contradictory reviews exist or when the editorial team deems it necessary to obtain further specialized input.
• Rejection of the manuscript.

When revisions are requested, authors must address the reviewers' comments within the timeframe established by the journal. Depending on the nature of the corrections, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the reviewers to verify compliance with their recommendations.
The final decision regarding the definitive acceptance or rejection of manuscripts rests with the journal's editorial board, which will determine outcomes based on the academic reports received and the editorial policies of the journal.