Peer review process | AmViMed Publishers
AmViMed Publishers uses a structured editorial workflow so authors, editors, and reviewers have clear expectations from initial checks through final decision and production. 1. Initial editorial assessment: Each submission is checked for scope, completeness, policy compliance, authorship information, and file readiness
AmViMed Publishers uses a structured editorial workflow so authors, editors, and reviewers have clear expectations from initial checks through final decision and production.
1. Initial editorial assessment
Each submission is checked for scope, completeness, policy compliance, authorship information, and file readiness before entering peer review. Editors may return incomplete submissions to authors before reviewer invitation if core metadata, declarations, or files are missing.
2. Reviewer selection and evaluation
Editors assign reviewers based on expertise, subject fit, and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewer invitations and due dates are tracked inside the editorial dashboard. Reviewers evaluate novelty, methodological rigor, reporting quality, ethical compliance, and the validity of the conclusions drawn from the presented evidence.
3. Decision and revision cycle
Once reviews are submitted, editors record one of several outcomes: accept, revisions required, or reject. Authors receive decision notes and may be given a revision deadline. Revised manuscripts re-enter editorial assessment and may be returned to reviewers where additional expert feedback is needed.
4. Production and publication
Accepted submissions move to galley preparation, APC settlement where applicable, issue assignment, metadata generation, and final publication. Workflow notifications can be configured by admins so authors, reviewers, and editorial staff receive updates at each stage.