Archives of Men’s Health (AMH) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the integrity, quality, and transparency of scientific communication. Authors’ and reviewers’ identities are kept strictly confidential throughout the entire review process.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editorial team for scope relevance, completeness, and adherence to submission guidelines. Manuscripts deemed suitable for further consideration are then assigned to at least two independent reviewers, based on their expertise.

Review Timeline
• Peer review is expected to be completed within six weeks of reviewer assignment.
• Reviewers evaluate the manuscript in accordance with internationally recognized research reporting standards appropriate to the article type (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE).
• After receiving reviewers’ comments, the editorial office sends them to the corresponding author.
• Authors are expected to submit their revisions or a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments within two weeks.

Editorial Decision

Upon receiving the revised manuscript:
• The Editor-in-Chief reviews the authors’ responses and the revised manuscript.
• If necessary, the manuscript may undergo a second round of review, either by the original reviewers or by new experts (including editorial board members).
• Final decisions (acceptance, further revision, or rejection) rest solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

Confidentiality & Ethical Handling
• The double-blind nature of the process ensures that neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other’s identities.
• The existence of a submitted manuscript is disclosed only to those directly involved in the editorial and review process.
• In the case of submissions from members of the editorial board or journal staff, full editorial independence is maintained. The involved editor has no role in the review or decision-making process for their own manuscript.

AMH is committed to upholding the principles of editorial transparency, unbiased peer review, and ethical publishing, in line with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).