About the Journal

All research articles and all other types of articles that are published in AMP undergo a peer review process. Reviewers are bound to comply with the confidentiality of the peer review process and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review during or after the peer review process. If reviewers wish to involve a colleague in the review process, a permission from the Editor is required. Reviewers should inform the editorial team if artificial intelligence-assisted technology was used to perform the review.

Manuscripts should be written in a clear, concise, and direct style. These must not have been published, in whole or in part, or submitted for publication elsewhere.

Manuscripts are initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and may be rejected at this stage, without being sent to reviewers. Final acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or, in the event of a conflict of interest on his part, with one of the Deputy Editors, who reserves the right to refuse any material for publication.

The AMP adopts a rigorous peer review process in a single-blind format, using experts from outside the journal who volunteer their time on a pro bono basis.

The manuscripts received are sent to experts in their own fields, who must provide their comments, including clear recommendations: acceptance, acceptance subject to minor or major modifications, or rejection. 

The use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies for the purposes of evaluation or review may not be permitted, as it involves uploading the manuscript to an unauthorized platform or AI software, which is considered a breach of confidentiality.

Thus, AI tools cannot be used to make any review easier, as uploading a manuscript to an unauthorized platform or AI software is considered a breach of confidentiality. 

Just as authors should be careful about the accuracy and objectivity of AI-generated text, reviewers should also be aware that AI-generated peer review comments may be inaccurate, incorrect, or biased.

During the evaluation, the articles may be

a) Accepted for publication without any changes.

b) Accepted with modifications proposed by the scientific consultants.

c) Rejected.

The timeline for this process has been defined as follows:

• Once the article has been received, the Editor-in-Chief or one of the Deputy Editors will analyze the manuscript to check that it complies with the publication rules and that it fits in with the editorial policy. If it complies, it will be sent to at least two reviewers. The manuscript may be rejected at this stage, without going through the review process.
• When receiving the communication confirming that the article proceeded to peer review, the Declaration of Copyright and Copyright Sharing and the ICMJE Declarations of Conflict of Interest,  should be immediately uploaded as supplementary files, duly filled in and signed by all the Authors.
• The reviewers should reply to the Editor within two weeks with their comments on the manuscript, in addition to any suggestions regarding the acceptance or rejection of the work.
• After collecting the reviewers' comments, the Editorial Board will make an initial decision within 15 days. This decision may include (i) accepting the article without modifications, (ii) sending the comments of the reviewers and editors to the authors so that they can make the recommended changes or, alternatively, (iii) rejecting the article. 
• The authors must submit the revised version of the manuscript within 30 days, incorporating the changes suggested by the experts and the Editorial Board. The new version must be uploaded to the AMP electronic platform, under the same editorial process (keeping the same ID# as the submission), with all changes highlighted in a different color. It should also be accompanied by a new Supplementary Document, answering all the questions clearly and objectively.
• The Editor-in-Chief will reach a decision on the new version within 15 days, either (i) rejecting, (ii) accepting the new version of the article or (iii) submitting it to one or several external reviewers whose opinion may or may not coincide with those resulting from the first review.
• In the case that the manuscript is sent back for external review, the experts must send their comments and their suggestions regarding the acceptance or rejection for publication within two weeks.
• After analysis of the reviewers’ suggestions, the Editor-in-Chief (i) may accept the article with this new version, (ii) reject it or (iii) request further reviews. In this event, the Authors must submit a revised version within one month, which may undergo a further review process by external experts if the Editor-in-Chief so determines.

The editor’s final decision for acceptance-rejection of a submitted paper is based on the following criteria:

I. Originality: original subject and/or method, with valuable information and presentation of new results or confirmation of previously verified results.

II. Timeliness and/or novelty: topic that is on the agenda of scientific meetings or communications or is a new subject.

III. Relevance: applicability of the results to solve real issues in clinical practice.

IV. Innovation and relevance: advances in scientific and technical knowledge and/or in clinical practice.

V. Reliability and scientific validity: high methodological quality.

VI. Presentation: proficient writing and text organization (good logical coherence and presentation of the material).

Even though the Editors and Reviewers make every effort to ensure the technical and scientific quality of the manuscripts, the final responsibility for the content (namely the accuracy of the observations as well as the opinions expressed) is the sole responsibility of the Authors.