Peer review

Previously selected manuscripts will be anonymously evaluated by two external scientific advisors, who must be recognized specialists in the field.

It is the reviewer’s duty to review the manuscript avoiding any prejudice. For this reason, the reviewer must let the journal know if there is any conflict of interest and must self-exclude him/herself when s/he thinks his/her objectivity might be affected.

All judgments and findings in the peer-review process should be objective, balanced and fair to ensure the quality of the paper. To this end, the criteria set out in the "Criteria for manuscript evaluation" (see "Focus and scope") should be followed.

The reviewer will have an evaluation form, in which s/he must first indicate the areas and scope of knowledge in which the study can be classified, according to the sections indicated in "Nature and subject matter of study" (see "Focus and scope").

The reviewer will then give a positive or negative opinion on each of the following questions: whether the title clearly reflects the content of the work; whether the initial report and the key words make clear the content of the manuscript; whether the structure of the manuscript is consistent; whether the wording is adequate; whether there is a relationship between the development of the manuscript and the objectives set out in the abstract; whether there are parts of the manuscript that could be omitted without affecting the structure and the central purpose of the document; whether the bibliographic references are adequate and sufficient; whether the quality and quantity of the data presented are related to the conclusions; whether the visual supporting material referred to is appropriate in relation to the content of the text; whether it is a work representing original scientific research; and whether it considers that the content of the manuscript will be useful to the reader interested in the content of the journal.

The "high", "medium" or "low" quality of the scientific contribution, the methodological treatment and the relevance of the new contributions will be assessed below.

Reviewers should control the originality and veracity of the articles, to avoid plagiarism, falsification or manipulation of data. Reviewers should alert the editor of any content published or presented that is substantially similar to the one being examined or if they suspect any other kind of misconduct.

Reviewers may point out relevant published works which are not yet cited, as well as assist authors with  constructive criticism. They can also make free observations for the author and/or the director of the journal and, finally, they will decide on whether the manuscript can be published without observations, if it must be corrected without new revision, if it must be corrected and again revised, or if it is considered that the article in question does not deserve to be published in IMAGO due to lack of quality.

Reviewers shall have the period of 15 days -by extending the period in justified cases- to give an assessment opinion.

In the event that a manuscript is evaluated negatively by two reviewers, both of them indicating a lack of quality, the manuscript will be returned to the author. When both evaluations are discordant, a third evaluation will be requested to solve the tie. If there is no unanimity after the third revision, the Director shall decide whether to admit the publication.

After the evaluation of the texts, the authors will be informed of the result of the review, as well as the observations and comments derived from it.

If the decision is "Publishable with modifications", a new version of the text must be sent to the journal within 15 days, according to the requests and suggestions provided in the evaluations. Articles with important corrections may be sent again to the reviewers and/or to the Editorial Board to verify the validity of the modifications made to the text.

Depending on the degree of compliance with the requested modifications, the Editorial Board will decide whether or not to publish the article, which will be communicated to the author.

Accepted articles depending on the speed of the evaluations and subsequent reviews by the authors can wait to be published for a reasonable time, and in any case by taking a turn in relation to the date of receipt.

The reviewed articles or any other information provided by the editor or authors should be treated confidentially prior to their publication.