Peer review

All manuscripts submitted to Medical Education & Clinical Practice undergo a rigorous external peer review process under a double-blind model, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation.

This review process applies to all editorial sections of the journal, including Original Articles, Brief Original Articles, Review Articles, Special Articles, Case Reports with Systematic Review, Scientific Letters, and Comment Letters. Original Articles and Brief Original Articles are evaluated by at least two reviewers.

Reviewers, both national and international, are selected based on their subject matter expertise, academic track record, prior recommendations, and experience as peer reviewers. Peer review is anonymous and voluntary. All interactions between editors and reviewers are conducted through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, where reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest, provide a critical assessment of the manuscript, and comment on its scientific quality, originality, methodology, and relevance to the field.

Reviewers are given up to 15 business days to submit their evaluations, with the option to request an extension if needed. Reviewer reports are not edited prior to being shared with the authors, except in cases where language may be considered offensive or if confidential information is disclosed.

Editorial decisions are based on the reviewers’ recommendations, which may include: i) acceptance without revisions; ii) acceptance pending minor revisions; iii) major revisions required prior to acceptance; or iv) rejection due to significant methodological or scientific limitations.

For Original Articles, reviewers may suggest reclassification as a Brief Original Article. In cases of substantial discrepancies between review reports, or at the discretion of the handling editor, a third reviewer may be invited to provide an additional evaluation.

Once the revised version is submitted by the authors, the Editorial Committee will assess whether the reviewers’ comments have been adequately addressed. If necessary, further revisions may be requested prior to final acceptance for publication.