Guidelines for Reviewers

REVIEWERS

Journal of Research in Energy, Environment and Technology (RIEMAT), ISSN: 2588-0721

Regulations for External Reviewers

The Board of External Reviewers constitutes a collegiate body in charge of guaranteeing the excellence of this scientific publication, since “RIEMAT”, in the blind evaluation is based exclusively on the quality of the contents of the manuscripts, carried out by experts of recognized international prestige in the field. This process guarantees the best guarantee for the advancement of science and preservation of original and valuable scientific production.

The evaluation of manuscripts by national and international experts is the fundamental key to select the articles with the greatest impact for the scientific community. This review also allows authors, once their manuscripts are considered for evaluation, to have objective reports on the strengths and weaknesses of their manuscripts, based on external criteria.

All the reviews in “RIEMAT” use the internationally standardized system of peer review with “double blind” that guarantees the anonymity of the manuscripts, audited within the Open Source OJS 3.0 Platform, generating an average of three reports for each manuscript submitted for evaluation, both from national and international reviewers.

The Board of Reviewers of “RIEMAT” is made up of a group of national and international experts in different topics, external to the governing bodies of the publishing group of the publication. They may be members, in turn, of the international Scientific Committee, the Editorial Committee or the Technical Council, but in any case their independence and anonymity is guaranteed throughout the evaluation process. Once a year they are made public on the official website of the journal, in the International Committee of Reviewers https://revistas.utm.edu.ec/index.php/Riemat/Comite_Internacional_de_Revisores.

1. CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION OF MANUSCRIPT EVALUATIONS

The editors of “RIEMAT” always request the contribution of the reviewer who is considered to be the most qualified in the subject matter of the manuscript whenever an invitation is made to evaluate it. However, the journal requests the maximum collaboration of the Reviewers in order to facilitate and expedite the reports and responses to the authors of the manuscripts. In any case, the acceptance of the same must be linked to:

a) Knowledge and academic experience on the subject of the manuscript. Acceptance necessarily entails the possession of competence in the specific subject matter of the article.

b) Time availability. Reviewing an article requires time and involves conscientious reflection on many aspects.

c) Conflict of interest. The scientific community is limited. Therefore, in case of identification of the authorship of the manuscript, excessive academic or family closeness to the authors, belonging to the same University, Department, Research Group, Thematic Network, Research Projects, joint publications with the authors... or any other type of connection or professional conflict/closeness, the editor's invitation for review should be rejected. Conflicts of interest can be either due to proximity or animosity to the authors, in case they can be identified within the anonymity of the manuscript. Authors can indicate through the Platform which researchers may have conflicts with their work. The reviewers should also indicate this fact.

d) Confidentiality commitment. The receipt of a manuscript for evaluation requires from the Reviewer an express commitment to confidentiality, so that it cannot, during the whole process, be disclosed to a third party. If you wish to obtain a peer review of the article, you should consult with the Editor, who must explicitly approve such restricted dissemination for evaluative purposes. The Editors welcome additional comments, but need to keep the entire review process confidential. Your assessment and recommendations will contribute to the final decision of the Editors.

If you are unable to carry out the review for any of these or other justifiable reasons, you must notify the Editor through the OJS Platform (by the same means you received the invitation), specifying the reasons for refusal so that they can be taken into account.

2. THE REVIEWER FUNCTION

The task of the Peer Reviewer, as a peer evaluator, is to critically and constructively analyze the content of the manuscript in order to collaborate with the Subject Editors in verifying/ratifying whether the submitted work is of high scientific quality and meets all the demanding parameters of this publication to be accepted and subsequently edited.

The Reviewers' assessment is key to appreciate the originality and excellence of the content presented in a substantial and accurate manner.

The Reviewers will provide an overall evaluation of “impact priority” that reflects the likelihood of the article to exert a consistent and powerful influence on the research areas of the Journal.

3. GENERAL MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION CRITERIA

a) Theme: The central theme of the article, in order to be valuable and relevant, must be both specific (allowing it to be treated in detail, without reaching localism), while at the same time being of deep interest to the international scientific community.

b) Writing: In general, the critical appraisal of the manuscript by the Reviewers must be written in an objective tone, providing exact quotations from the manuscript or references of interest to show its argumentation and justify it.

c) Originality: The originality and suitability of the manuscript is essential as a selection criterion for our journal. The high number of papers received requires the reviewers to be very selective:

     - Is the paper sufficiently novel and interesting to justify its publication?
     - Does it contribute something to the canon of knowledge?
     - Is the research question relevant?

A quick literature search using tools such as Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar to see if the research has been previously covered can be helpful. References from those works are also of interest to the Editors.

d) Structure: Any manuscript should contain all the key elements: abstract, introduction, methodology, results and discussion, and conclusion.

     - The title, abstract and keywords must accurately describe the content of the article. They are essential for Internet search engines to help any reader easily retrieve the article.
     - The literature review should summarize the state of the art of the relevant research that contextualizes the work in the international panorama, and explain which conclusions of other authors, if any, are being questioned or extended. It should include the general explanation of the study, its central objective and the methodological design followed.
     - In the case of research, in the description and analysis of the method, the author should specify how the data were collected, the process and the instruments used, and gather all the information necessary to replicate the study if another researcher wishes to do so.
     - In the results and discussion, the findings should be clearly specified, clearly established and in logical sequence. It will be necessary to take into account whether the corresponding type of analysis followed, whether quantitative, qualitative or mixed, presents any type of error. The discussion includes here the interpretation of the data obtained both in the light of the literature review and the data collection. Authors should include here whether their article supports or contradicts previous theories. Finally, the conclusions will also explain the advances that the research proposes in the area of scientific knowledge.
     - Language: if an article presents important grammatical errors, spelling mistakes or confusing language that makes it difficult to read, does not present clarity, simplicity, precision and transparency of the scientific language, the Evaluator should not proceed to correct it, either in Spanish or English. It will inform the Editors of these grammatical errors or complex language and they will proceed to return it to its authors so that they can proceed to present a text with the required parameters according to the regulations.
     - The pertinence of the figures and tables, their contribution, the precise description of the data, as well as the consistency of the graphics must also be determined, for which the author(s) must follow the instructions to the authors.
     - Finally, a thorough review of the references is required in case any relevant work has been omitted. The references must be precise, citing in the logic of the subject to be studied, its main works, as well as the documents that are most similar to the work itself, as well as the latest research in the area.

4. RELEVANT DIMENSIONS OF ASSESSMENT

The reviewers of “RIEMAT” have to deeply analyze the manuscript, contrasting the information offered, reviewing the scientific literature that justifies the document and informing the editors in a quantitative and qualitative way about the convenience or not of accepting the work.

The evaluative information must be reasoned and qualitative, which must be in tune with the written observations that will allow correction if required by the author or authors, for which the following criteria will be used.

It will be evaluated with a qualitative scale from 1 to 5, (1 will be considered totally in agreement, 3 neither in agreement nor in disagreement and 5 totally in disagreement) in the latter case the author or authors should make the comments generated by the evaluator.

General Appraisal of the Article

     - The topic is of academic/university interest.
     - The length is adequate (considering the subject matter).
     - It is well cited and documented (with adequate citations from the last 5 years to mainstream journals).

Originality

     - The article represents a relevant contribution (in any of the areas of university and teaching work).
     - There are new ideas and influential reflections
     - Relevant application of methods and experiences

Clarity

     - The title adequately describes the content
     - Spelling, grammar and wording are correct
     - Tables and figures are well prepared
     - The abstract is sufficiently informative and accurate (contains objectives, methodology, results, conclusions).

Comments to Authors

In this section, the authors should express their opinions on the articles in greater detail.

Overall evaluation

     - Acceptable with minor modifications (formal)
     - Acceptable with substantive modifications (content)
     - Acceptable with modifications of form and substance
     - NOT acceptable for publication

Attached is a format for reviewers: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1T5f_Lnnp_gBWoQRfhJORJZbXhxPTgFOU?usp=sharing

5. ETHICAL ISSUES

a) Plagiarism: If the Reviewer suspects that an article is a substantial copy of another work, the Reviewer should inform the Editors, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible. The plagiarism and self-plagiarism detection systems used (Compilatio) are prescriptive by the publication, both by Reviewers and Editors.

b) Fraud: If there is real or remote suspicion that the results in an article are false or fraudulent, it is necessary to report them to the Editors.

6. MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION PROCESS IN OJS

From the moment the expert is part of the Board of Reviewers, he/she is registered in the OJS Platform and, from that moment on, he/she can receive requests for article evaluation. To do so, he/she will receive an e-mail requesting the review of an article in his/her personal mailbox. This request must be accepted or rejected within 10 days through the platform.

To notify his/her decision, the Reviewer must identify him/herself with his/her user name and password, provided when he/she was registered (in case of loss, if the user name is known, a new password can be automatically requested) and having selected the role of Reviewer, he/she will have access to the screen with the list of “Active Submissions”.

When you click on the article to be reviewed, a page will appear with information about the submission to be reviewed: the status of the review (dates), the steps to be taken to complete the review and the rules.

a) Select, according to the Reviewer's decision, whether to accept or reject the assignment.

b) If the decision is affirmative, the Reviewer must write the report.

c) After sending the acceptance e-mail, you must download the article to be reviewed and save it on your PC.

d) After reviewing the downloaded article, the Evaluator must fill in the Evaluation Form.

e) To upload the Evaluator's Report, you must click on the “Browse” button, which will allow you to browse through the files on your PC until you find the appropriate one and then click on the “Upload” button.

Once the evaluation has been completed, the screen that allows you to send an e-mail to the Editor to inform him/her of the end of the review is enabled, by clicking on the “Send Review to Editor” button. It is essential to perform this last action to let the Editor know that the review work has been completed.

The evaluation of an article ends with the sending of this e-mail.

This review will be evaluated by the Subject Editors, who will make a decision taking into account the evaluations and expert and editorial criteria. One of the possible decisions is to initiate a new round of review (second round), for which the collaboration of the same Reviewer could be requested again, who would go through the steps described above.

To complete this information: https://revistas.ute.edu.ec/index.php/eidos