AME aims to provide a service to authors and the wider research community by making as much research available as possible, provided it meets our journals’ high standards for research conduct and ethical procedures and receives approval after peer review. This guidelines for reviewers are made based on the Committee on Publication Ethics Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals,which also provide further information on how to be objective and constructive in your review.

1. Peer review mode

All AME journals use double-blind peer review, meaning:

• the reviewer’s name is NOT disclosed to the author
• the author’s name is NOT disclosed to the reviewer

2. Transparent peer review

With a commitment to openness and accountability, and to increase the level of transparency throughout our peer review process, a majority of AME journals have fully implemented the transparent peer review process. For journals that employ the transparent peer review process, the reviewer will be notified of the transparent peer review policy in their reviewer invitation letter. Please refer to the website of a specific journal for more information.

3. The role of reviewers

If we require your expertise to evaluate a manuscript, we will send you an invitation by email. You can then accept or decline this invitation through our online submission system. By agreeing to review, you provide an essential service to the journal and the scientific community, helping to ensure that all published research is methodologically rigorous, scientifically sound, ethically conducted, and reported in line with relevant guidelines (e.g., the CARE guidelines for case reports).

Ultimately, the final decision on manuscript acceptance rests with the Editorial Office. This decision is made following an editorial assessment. In many cases, a decision can be reached based on our evaluation of the revised manuscript and the authors’ point-by-point responses alone. Therefore, reviewers are not automatically invited for a second round of evaluation. Additional review will be sought (from the original or new reviewers) only after an editorial evaluation determines that further expert input is necessary to assess the revisions.

4. Recognition for reviewers

AME has entered an official partnership with Publons, as of April 2020. The partnership enables the contributions of our expert peer reviewers to be easily recognized. Most of AME journals’ peer review systems are integrated seamlessly into the Publons platform. For more details, please check the website of a specific journal.

5. To become a reviewer

If you would like to become a reviewer for a specific journal of AME, please send an email to the Editorial Office with a copy of your CV attached and an indication of your review interests.

6. Guidance for peer reviewers

• When you provide a review via the journal’s submission system, please declare any competing interests you may have in relation to the article. These could be of a personal, professional, or financial nature.
• Before writing your review, you may find it helpful to browse the journal’s guidelines for authors. Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively. Criticism should be objective, not merely based on differences of opinion, and should aim to help the author improve their paper. Our journals require authors to use reporting guidelines when writing a manuscript and to submit a completed checklist for each guideline. We encourage you to use this completed checklist included in the review task to aid in your review. Please first check whether the minimum information indicated in the checklist is included in the report and use the reporting guideline to aid in your assessment of the manuscript. If you find the checklist has been filled in incorrectly or that the manuscript does not actually include the information required by the checklist, as part of review comments, you could as well indicate what additional information must be reported. A reporting guideline may not be used to directly judge the quality of the methodology used in the study, but does suggest the kinds of questions that should be considered when designing a study.
• All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. The existence of a manuscript under review should not be revealed to anyone other than the peer reviewers and editorial staff. Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal’s editors, which may prohibit the uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers should disclose to editors if and how AI technology is being used to facilitate their review and be aware that AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.
• If we invite you to review an article and you choose to discuss the manuscript with a colleague, please remind them of the confidential nature of the paper and acknowledge their input in your review. Please also encourage your colleagues to register as reviewers.
• If you have any serious concerns relating to the publication ethics of a manuscript (e.g., if you believe you have encountered a case of plagiarism), you can contact the Editorial Office in confidence.

We are very grateful to all of the reviewers who have supported our journals so far.

Updated on January 22, 2026