Editorial & Peer review

The Span J Med uses double-blind peer-review, meaning that both reviewers and authors are anonymous throughout the process. Internal procedures guarantee that this standard is applied to all articles authored by members of the editorial team.

The editorial process is conducted through the manuscript’s management platform at: http://publisher.SpanishJMed.permanyer.com/

The editorial process comprises 7 steps:

  1. Review by the editorial office
    1. Upon reception of the manuscript, the editorial office reviews the document to ensure adhesion to author guidelines (format, style, sections, references, etc.), which are available at the journal website.
  2. Review by the Editor or Co-editor-in-Chief
    1. The Editor or Co-editor-in-Chief review the manuscript, and validates if the theme, originality and scientific quality of the paper are fit to be published in the journal.
    2. The manuscript is evaluated for plagiarism, double publication and related issues.
    3. The manuscript may be rejected at this step, in which case the main author will receive a notification.
  3. Assignment to an associate editor
    1. If the previous step is cleared, the Editor or Co-editor-in-Chief may assign the manuscript to an associate editor with expertise in the field, who will be in charge of inviting reviewers.
    2. The Editor or Co-editor-in-Chief will ensure that the associate editor has no relevant conflict of interest according to COPE guidelines.
  4. Reviewer invitation
    1. The associate editor in charge will invite reviewers, who must be individuals with expertise in the field. The number of reviewers may vary according to the study type but will be at least two. An individual will not be considered as potential reviewer if a relevant conflict of interest exists.
  5. Manuscript review
    1. Reviewers will critically review the manuscript and must submit a recommendation among four possible options (Accept, Minor changes, Major changes or Reject). They may also submit comments for the author aimed to improve the quality of the manuscript.
    2. Reviewers are encouraged to provide an exhaustive and objective review.
  6. Associate editor’s decision
    1. The associate editor in charge will receive the recommendations issued by reviewers, so a final decision can be made.
    2. If reviewers disagree in their recommendation, it is possible for the editor to invite additional reviewers.
    3. Whenever needed, a review of statistical methodology may be carried out by members of the editorial committee fit to do so.
    4. If the decision is Minor/Major changes, the editor will resubmit the manuscript to reviewers for a complete evaluation.
  7. Editor or Co-editor-in-Chief’s final decision
    1. Once the associate editor recommends acceptance, the Editor or Co-editor-in-Chief will review the recommendation and take the final decision on acceptance. If considered necessary by the Editor or Co-editor-in-Chief, he will still ask the authors for corrections. The main author will receive the final decision via email.

Lastly, the editorial office double-checks for grammar, style, and references in the final version of the manuscript. In all cases, the author receives the final proofs for its approval before publication.

The only exception to this editorial flow occurs for solicited editorials and review articles. The priority of these manuscripts will be assessed mainly by the editorial team, which will submit manuscripts to an external review if deemed appropriate. 

Processing of manuscripts is ruled by COPE best practice guidelines available at: https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct.