Once the relevance and scientific solvency of the manuscript has been determined by the Editorial Board, the document is sent to a minimum of two experts of recognized international prestige in the field, using the internationally standardized system of peer evaluation with "double-blind" that guarantees the anonymity of the manuscripts and their reviewers.

In the event of conflicting results, a third opinion will be submitted, which will be final. As a measure of transparency, the list of reviewers is available on the Anatomía Digital page, which is updated annually.

The result of the evaluation is communicated to the author, together with the comments, suggestions and observations of the referees, within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of the original. In all cases, the evaluations are final.

When articles are rejected because the topic does not correspond to the journal's guidelines, double-blind peer review is not performed.

When the evaluation result is positive and modifications have been indicated, the manuscript will be requested to be rewritten in accordance with the evaluators' suggestions. The author may argue about the aspects with which he or she does not agree, or choose to withdraw the proposal. The new version must be submitted within a period of two weeks; if this period expires, the article will be considered rejected. The rewritten text will be sent to one of the specialists who originally reviewed it to verify that the suggestions were made, and to a new expert in the field in order to decide whether the original is accepted for publication. Once the second version has been accepted by the academic peers, no new modifications may be made, with the exception of adapting it to the journal's standards for submitting originals.

Anatomía Digital It has a Creative Commons License 4.0 ofAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0The journal only retains the rights to publish the works in the digital version.