Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Revista Alergia México adheres to the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), following the Vancouver style (updated in December 2013). More information is available at:
http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html

Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. The journal assigns expert reviewers within the same field as the manuscript’s subject matter.

Review Procedure

  1. The editor selects two expert reviewers who assess the manuscript and provide recommendations for improvement.
  2. The editor compiles the reviewers’ feedback and forwards it to the author.
  3. If both reviewers agree, the editor issues a final decision.
  4. In case of conflicting evaluations, a third reviewer may be consulted.

Decision Outcomes

  • Accepted: The manuscript undergoes pre-editing and may be returned to the author for formatting adjustments before final processing and publication.
  • Revisions Required: The author receives the reviewers’ comments and must revise the manuscript accordingly. If resubmitted, it undergoes another round of evaluation, typically by the same reviewers.
  • Rejected: If a manuscript is not accepted for publication, the editor may, at their discretion, provide reviewer comments to help the author improve the work.

For accepted manuscripts requiring mandatory revisions, the author has up to 30 days to submit the revised version. The revised manuscript is then re-evaluated.

Reviewers must complete the first evaluation within 15 days and any subsequent revisions within 7 days.

Failure to meet deadlines for submitting revisions may result in manuscript rejection.

Authors may formally withdraw their manuscript at any time by notifying the editorial office.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Reviews must be objective, fair, and constructive, free of personal opinions or biases.
  • If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess a manuscript, they should notify the editorial office after reading the abstract, before receiving the full text.
  • Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest regarding the authors, content, or funding sources that may affect their impartiality.
  • Reviewers should identify any missing relevant references and notify the editorial board of potential duplicate publications.
  • Manuscripts under review must remain confidential and should not be shared with others.

Editorial Responsibilities

  • The Editorial Board evaluates all submissions fairly, without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality, or political ideology.
  • Editors must disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their decision-making and, if necessary, recuse themselves from the review process.
  • The Editorial Board has full authority to accept, reject, or conditionally accept manuscripts based on their originality, scientific merit, and contribution to the field.
  • The peer review process remains confidential, and the identity of reviewers is not disclosed.
  • If errors or inaccuracies are identified in published articles, the Editorial Board is responsible for issuing corrections or retractions as appropriate.

Suggesting Reviewers

Authors may propose potential reviewers with expertise in the subject area of their manuscript. When making these suggestions, authors must provide the full names, institutional affiliations, and institutional email addresses of the proposed candidates.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

To ensure an objective and impartial evaluation, suggested reviewers must meet the following criteria:

  • Independence and Transparency: Reviewers should not be current colleagues or have collaborated with the authors on publications, research projects, or institutional affiliations within the past three years.
  • Absence of Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should not have any financial, academic, or personal relationships with the authors that could compromise their impartiality.
  • Diversity and Balance: Authors are encouraged to suggest reviewers from different geographical regions than their own to ensure a broad and representative evaluation. Consideration of diversity in gender, professional experience, and career stage is also encouraged.
  • Exclusion of Editorial Board Members: Members of the Revista Alergia México editorial team should not be included in the list of suggested reviewers, as they are already involved in overseeing the peer review process.

Confidentiality of Reviewers

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality during the review process. They may not disclose any aspect of the manuscript until publication.

Editorial Decision

The final selection of reviewers is at the sole discretion of the editorial team. The suggestion of reviewers by the authors does not guarantee their selection. The journal reserves the right to invite additional or alternative reviewers to ensure a rigorous and balanced evaluation process.

  • Once a manuscript enters the review process, it cannot be submitted to another journal until a final decision is issued.