Reviewr's Guide
The brief presented below reveals the process by passing an article before being published, as well as defining the guidelines that the evaluating pair must follow before, during and after the evaluation.
Process of reception, evaluation, approval and publication: editorial times
The evaluation process begins at the moment in which the author and his article comply with the preliminary evaluation guidelines presented (authors' guide). If the instructions are not met, the article will be sent to the author to apply the relevant guidelines to the article, and 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 postulated articles will be evaluated by national and international anonymous peers (preferably outside the publishing institution), experts in the specific topic of the article to conceptualize the work considering the following criteria:
- Internal coherence of work.
- Quality and consistency of discourse.
- 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 Deficient (D), and will issue the following concepts: i ) publishable without modifications, ii) publishable with slight changes, iii) publishable with substantial modification and iv) not publishable. Also, the evaluator, if deemed necessary, may attach observations and recommendations in additional formats or sheets.
The articles are considered a confidential document together with their respective files, for this reason, the evaluation process for both the evaluators and the authors is anonymous (double-blind evaluation), where reviewers and authors do not know each other.
In case a positive and a negative evaluation are presented, the article will be sent to a third peer to define its status (Table 1).
Evaluation times. The time between the selection of the evaluators and the acceptance and delivery of the concept takes place in an average time 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 accelerate the process. The journal will only send the authors an official communication about their article, once it has a decision-making result of the evaluator.
When the evaluator issues a concept of publishable with substantial modifications, the authors must make and send those corrections in a time of eight (8) days. When the concept is published with slight modifications, the maximum time to make corrections and send is four (4) days. All these times counted from the date the author receive the note.
Ethics and editorial guidelines for the reviewer
- Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.
- Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
- Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
- Declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
- Not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
- Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments.
- Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner.
- Provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
- Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.