Peer review

The articles sent to the journal Biociencias undergo an internal evaluation process by the Editorial Committee to define, according to the subject of the article and the scope of the journal, whether to initiate the peer review process.

Editorial Committee Evaluation

At this stage, a preliminary review is made of the structure of the article, contents, use of bibliographic references, referencing of tables and figures, writing and especially that it has not been published in other media.

Average response time for this stage: 4 weeks.

Academic Peer Assessment

The articles accepted by the editorial committee are sent for evaluation by two pairs, the culaes in 70% are from other institutions, in addition they have as a condition that they have published, in indexed journals, articles related to the one they evaluated, and have at least the same academic level of the highest grade of the authors. The reviewers do not know the name of the authors and vice versa (double blind review). In case the concepts are contradictory, the Editorial Committee will assign a third evaluator.

Average response time for this stage: 6 months.

Once the evaluations have been received, a definitive concept is consolidated that will be issued to the authors so that the appropriate actions can be taken (academic peer evaluation format).

When the new version of the article is received (if the observations require it), the editorial committee will verify the inclusion of the comments of the peer reviewers. This is due to the fact that only those articles with concepts Accept Shipping or Revisions Needed will be considered as accepted.

Only at the end of this stage can a letter of acceptance of the article be issued from Biosciences.

Forward-for-review articles can start the evaluation process again if the author uploads a substantially modified version.

Ethics note: In accordance with the policies for the publication of articles in Biosciences, it will be considered unethical by the authors to submit articles that have been previously published for evaluation, which lack the criteria of adequate citation and referencing, or that are subjected to evaluation simultaneously in different publications. Furthermore, taking into account that the evaluation process is double blind, any attempt to contact the evaluators with the intention of coercing the result of the evaluation will be considered an unethical action.