The Atlas Journal of Medicine is an open-access electronic journal that employs a peer-review process based on mutual anonymity and a double-blind system. Its goal is to enhance the body of scientific knowledge in the fields of medicine and health by publishing rigorously vetted studies.
The primary objectives of the peer review process are to determine the suitability of articles for publication (considering their quality and relevance to the journal) and to refine the articles prior to publication. Initially, all submissions undergo an internal review process where a designated section editor assesses the manuscript to decide whether to accept or reject it (for instance, if the topic falls outside the journal’s scope or if there are significant scientific flaws). Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise, with preference given to those who can provide high-quality feedback within the specified timeframe. The editorial board is regularly consulted throughout this process. After receiving qualified reviews, the editor evaluates the critiques and recommendations from the reviewers, along with other considerations such as the article's alignment with the journal's goals and its utility for clinicians or researchers.
Referee evaluations must remain objective. During the review process, referees are expected to consider the following criteria:
• Does the article present new and significant information?
• Is the abstract a clear and accurate representation of the article's content?
• Are the methods thoroughly and clearly outlined?
• Are the conclusions and comments supported by the findings?
• Are sufficient references provided to related studies in the field?
• Is the language quality satisfactory?
• Do the abstract and keywords accurately reflect the article's content?
In cases where one peer review report is positive and another is negative, the manuscript will be sent to a third reviewer for further assessment.
A single peer review report is adequate for rejecting a manuscript, whereas at least two reports are necessary for acceptance. If one report recommends "Accept" or "Minor Revision" while the other suggests "Major Revision," and the editor leans towards acceptance, the manuscript will be sent back to the same reviewer after the author has made the necessary corrections. Depending on the feedback from the reviewer who requested the "Major Revision," the article may be rejected or forwarded to a third peer reviewer. Reviewers who request revisions may also ask for a re-evaluation of the article post-revision, and they will be granted an additional 15 days for this evaluation.