Manuscripts sent to Informador Técnico receive the first verification from the editorial team to verify their compliance with the author's approach, scope, and guidelines. Then, the novelty of the manuscript is validated using an originality checker to verify that the manuscript has not been published in another journal and does not show evidence of plagiarism and is verified grammatically.
Then, the manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer-review process (the author and the evaluator do not know the identities of each one) inviting experts in the field, affiliated with national and international institutions, who will evaluate the scientific quality, originality, and value of the content of the manuscript. If during the process, the reviewer must indicate if he has ethical impediments or conflicts of interest, he should suspend the review and communicate it to the editorial team.
The reviewers must consider the type of manuscript (research, reflection, or literature review), and the following criteria:
The scope of the study, whether the manuscript can be cited, whether it is of interest to the science community, or the productive sector, for its scientific quality.
• Research articles should consider the summary, the updated state of the art, the methodology if the contributions are derived from a rigorous analysis of the results, if the discussion clearly explains the impact of work on the state of the art, if the Literature review is sufficient, current and relevant to the topic of the article and the quotes updated and cited within the text.
• In the review articles, an argument must be presented for the presentation and contextualization of the topic and justify the need for a review regarding the lack of knowledge that the manuscript intends to cover. The procedure developed for the location, selection, analysis, and validation of the sources consulted must be described. The contributions of the manuscript can only be derived from the literature as a whole. It should be verified that the literature review is sufficient, current, and relevant to the subject of the article and is updated and the citations updated and cited within the text.
• For reflection articles, it should be considered if it is presented in a logical, demonstrative, or persuasive order that revolves around a fundamental topic, and arguments are developed to support or refute it. In the conclusions of the manuscript, the contributions of the opinions presented must be presented, probable additional lines of investigation are analyzed, and the limitations and scope of the position taken are discussed.
After considering the reviews, the editorial team must decide whether de manuscript doesn’t require to be modified, whether the authors need to make minor or major changes, or whether the manuscript must be rejected.
Manuscript review formats and reviewer’s guide
