Standards for reviewers

Guidelines for reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to reviewers are previously evaluated by the Editorial Committee, which determines the exclusion of manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Not corresponding to the thematic areas established by the journal.
  • Failure to comply with the rules for authors established by the journal.
  • Infringement of academic ethics (originality, plagiarism, among others).
  • Failure to apply the good practices established by the journal.
  • Editorial endogamy.

The previous review carried out by the Editorial Committee, if the manuscript is not favorable, does not prevent the author from making the suggested adjustments and resubmitting the document to the journal.

Responsibilities of reviewers

The reviewers chosen to issue an evaluation and/or opinion on the manuscripts should consider the following premises:

  • Evaluate the manuscripts that respond to the academic experience and the reviewer's profile; accept or reject it, as the case may be.
  • Send the opinions within the deadlines established by the journal.
  • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscripts evaluated before, during and after the process.
  • The reviewer should not contact the authors of the manuscript.
  • The reviewer's decisions and the opinions issued will not be subject to the criteria of the editors.

Choice of reviewers

  • The convened reviewer will be part of the journal's database and must be an expert in the area of specialization of the submitted manuscript.
  • Acceptance or rejection of the evaluation of a manuscript must be explicit; rejection will not have negative consequences for the reviewer.
  • Evaluations are carried out under the peer review system, in the double-blind modality (author and reviewer are anonymous).

Review opinion

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 and no further evaluation is required.
  • Accepted for publication.
  • Not publishable, the manuscript cannot be published, for various academic reasons and/or the research does not meet editorial quality requirements.
  • When corrections are required, the authors accept them or not according to their criteria, as long as their incorporation is justified. Then, they return their document to the Editor through the journal's platform.
  • The Editorial Committee verifies compliance with the observations. Then, it accepts or rejects its publication.
  • If the document is rejected, the authors are informed of the reasons.
  • 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 be submitted for further revision, for which the criteria of a third reviewer will be requested.
  • The results of the arbitration will be final.
  • The Editor reviews the final version, corrects and sends it to the corresponding author for approval of the final layout.
  • The Editorial Committee will inform the author of the result of the evaluation within a period not exceeding six months, through the Editor of the journal.
  • 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.

The reviewer undertakes to make comments addressed to the authors and the Editor.

Ethical recommendations

  • The reviewer will not give an opinion on the manuscript based on any type of discrimination (racial, political, ideological, religious or cultural).
  • The reviewer may not use the data or information obtained from the manuscript for his/her own benefit.
  • The reviewer must maintain the confidentiality of the data or information contained in the manuscript.
  • The reviewer should not assume the evaluation of a manuscript, given possible conflicts of interest.
  • Reviewers may not intervene in the evaluation of manuscripts when they are researching or working on a similar topic or are an integral part of the research.
  • Reviewers should be constructive and clear in the comments issued in the evaluation.