Guide for reviewers
The document presented below reveals the process an article goes through before being published, in addition to defining the guidelines that the peer reviewer must follow before, during and after the evaluation.
Reception, evaluation, approval and publication process: editorial times
The evaluation process begins when the author and their article comply with the preliminary evaluation guidelines set forth (authors' guide). If the guidelines are not met, the article will be sent so that the author applies the corresponding guidelines to the article, this period should not be longer than 15 business days. Once the guidelines are met, the Editorial Committee will evaluate the relevance of the article. To then select the evaluators.
The submitted articles will be evaluated by national and international anonymous peers (preferably outside the publishing institution), experts in the specific topic of the article so that they can conceptualize the work considering the following criteria:
- Internal consistency of work.
- Quality and coherence of speech.
- Mastery of knowledge, quality or academic level.
- Contribution to knowledge.
- Contribution to future research.
- Originality and scientific quality.
The evaluator will issue his concept in the article evaluation format, where he will qualify each of the aspects as Excellent (E), Good (B), Regular (R) or Poor (D), and will issue the following concepts: i ) publishable without modification, ii) publishable with slight modifications, iii) publishable with substantial modification and iv) not publishable. In addition, the evaluator, if deemed necessary, may attach observations and recommendations in additional forms or sheets.
The articles together with their respective files are considered a confidential document, for this reason, the evaluation process for both the evaluators and the authors is anonymous (double-blind evaluation), where the reviewers and the authors do not know each other.
In case there is a positive and a negative evaluation, the article will be sent to a third peer to define its status (Table 1).
Table 1. Peer evaluation concepts
|
Both positive reviews |
Publishable and the author is notified |
|
Both negative reviews |
Not publishable and the author is notified |
|
One positive and one negative feedback |
The article is necessary to a third evaluator. If positive, it is sent to the author to make the suggested adjustments within 8 days. |
Source: self made
Evaluation times.The time between the selection of the evaluators and the acceptance or delivery of the concept takes an average of six (6) months. However, this period may be shorter or longer, depending on the availability of the reviewers and other factors that may delay or speed up the process. The magazin will only send the authors an official communication about their article, once it has a decision-making result from the evaluator.
When the evaluator issues a publishable concept with substantial modifications, the authors must make and send those corrections within eight (8) days. When the concept is publishable with slight modifications, the maximum time to make corrections and send it is four (4) days. All these times counted from the date of notice to the author.
BASIC PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED BY PEER EVALUATORS[1]
The document presented below reveals the process an article goes through before being published, in addition to defining the guidelines that the peer reviewer must follow before, during and after the evaluation.
The peer reviewers must:
- Agree to review only the manuscripts for which they have the necessary experience to carry out an adequate evaluation and in a timely period.
- Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer review process, beyond those authorized by the magazin.
- Do not use the information obtained during the review process for your benefit or that of any other person or organization or to the detriment or discredit of others.
- Declare all possible conflicts of interest, seeking advice from the magazin when they are not sure if something constitutes a relevant interest.
- Not allow their opinions to be influenced by the origin of a manuscript, by nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
- Be objective and constructive in your criticism, refraining from being hostile or inciting and from making derogatory or defamatory comments against any person.
- Recognize that peer review is largely a reciprocal effort and commit to doing your fair share of the review and in a timely manner.
- Provide the magazine with accurate personal and professional information and real support of your experience.
- Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.
[1] Committee on Publication Ethics: COPE
http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines_0.pdf
