Peer review
Articles submitted to IJEPH are peer-reviewed through the double-blind system and in accordance with the established principles for peer review of the ICMJE http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html.
The articles that the Editorial Committee considers comply with the editorial policy and the academic interest of the journal IJEPH are submitted to the peer review process. This process consists of:
1) First review. The editorial committee identifies whether the manuscript complies with the journal's policies and the publication guidelines established in the authors' guide (one to two weeks).
2) Second revision. Depending on the topic of the manuscript, a section editor evaluates the relevance, pertinence and depth of the manuscript, and defines whether to initiate peer review (one to two weeks).
3) Third review. The manuscript is sent to three peers for double-blind peer review. On average, more than 70% of the peer reviewers are from institutions other than the Universidad Libre (up to three months).
The decision can be: approved without changes, approved subject to minor changes, approved subject to major changes, rejected not publishable.
Any decision is communicated by mail to the corresponding author, through the journal's management system, within two to three months from the date the original is received. If the manuscript is accepted with minor or major changes, these must be sent within the period indicated by the journal.
The following are the items that are evaluated:
1. ORIGINALITY: The central theme of the article is original.
2. METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR: Is the type of study clearly described and does it correspond to the results?
Is there coherence between the objective and the results?
3. STRUCTURE OF THE TEXT: Clear, concise and precise title.
It includes all the components of an article (abstract, key words, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusions, bibliographical references).
Is there correspondence between the title, abstract and content?
4. TREATMENT OF THE TOPIC: It presents adequate sequence and coherence in the development of the topic.
5. RELEVANCE: The article is important for the scientific community and the advancement of knowledge in the area.
6. FORMAL ASPECTS OF THE ARTICLE: Style (clarity, conciseness, precision and coherence).
Do the author's contributions present coherence and strength in the discussion?
Are the references sufficient, recent, pertinent and adequate?
FINAL DECISION
REASONS FOR FINAL DECISION:
Note or comments for editor only (may place another consideration that only the editor will see).
