Guidelines for Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

The manuscripts provided to reviewers are pre-evaluated by the Editorial Committee, which determines the exclusion of manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Not corresponding to the thematic areas established by the journal.
  • Non-compliance with the author guidelines established by the journal.
  • Violation of academic ethics (originality, plagiarism, etc.).
  • Failure to follow the journal's good practices.
  • Editorial endogamy.

The preliminary review conducted by the Editorial Committee, if not favorable, does not prevent the author from making the suggested adjustments and resubmitting the document to the journal.

Reviewer Responsibilities: Reviewers chosen to evaluate and/or issue a verdict on manuscripts must consider the following premises:

  • Evaluate manuscripts that match the academic experience and profile of the reviewer; accept or reject them as appropriate.
  • Submit reviews within the deadlines established by the journal.
  • Maintain confidentiality of the evaluated manuscripts before, during, and after the process.
  • Reviewers should not contact the manuscript authors.
  • Reviewers’ decisions and issued verdicts will not be subject to the editors' criteria.

Reviewer Selection:

  • Invited reviewers will be part of the journal's database and must be experts in the manuscript's area of specialization.
  • Acceptance or rejection of the manuscript evaluation should be explicit; rejection will not have negative consequences for the reviewer.
  • Evaluations are conducted under a double-blind peer review system (author and reviewer are anonymous).

Review Verdict: Based on the results of the manuscript evaluations, the following criteria are considered:

  • Publishable with modifications, after which it must be re-evaluated.
  • Publishable with modifications, without requiring re-evaluation.
  • Accepted for publication.
  • Not publishable, the manuscript cannot be published due to various academic reasons and/or failure to meet editorial quality requirements.
  • When corrections are required, authors may accept or reject them at their discretion, provided the rationale for inclusion is justified. They then return their document to the Editor via the journal's platform.
  • The Editorial Committee verifies compliance with the observations and then accepts or rejects the publication.
  • If the document is rejected, the reasons are communicated to the authors.
  • If the article is accepted for publication, the author must make the suggested corrections.
  • In case of discrepancies or doubts regarding the content, the manuscript will undergo major revisions, for which the opinion of a third reviewer will be requested.
  • The results of the arbitration are final.
  • The Editor reviews the final version, corrects it, and sends it to the corresponding author for final layout approval.
  • The Editorial Committee will inform the author of the evaluation result within four months, through the journal’s Editor.
  • If an article, once approved, cannot be published in any of the next two issues of the journal, the Editor will inform the author of the delay.

Reviewers commit to providing comments directed to both the authors and the editor.

Ethical Recommendations:

  • Reviewers should not express opinions on the manuscript based on any form of discrimination (racial, political, ideological, religious, or cultural).
  • Reviewers may not use the data or information obtained from the manuscript for their benefit.
  • Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the data or information contained in the manuscript.
  • Reviewers should not undertake the evaluation of a manuscript if there are potential conflicts of interest.
  • Reviewers should not intervene in the evaluation of manuscripts when researching or working on a similar topic or being part of the research.
  • Reviewers must be constructive and clear in the comments issued in the evaluation.