GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEWER

The evaluation of the articles submitted for publication in the RCSO consists of four moments: (1) Reception; (2) Initial evaluation; (3) Evaluation of Academic Peers and (4) Final Selection for Publication.

  1. Reception: begins with the submission of the manuscripts by the authors on the journal's OJS platform, attached the letters of assignment of rights and declaration of originality. The documents presented must not have been published or submitted to another magazine.
  2. Initial evaluation: The document is reviewed by the editor and the editorial committee to determine its relevance, the fulfillment of the editorial guidelines with the following possibilities:
  3. If the article is relevant and complies with the editorial guidelines, it is evaluated by parts.
  4. If the article is pertinent but does not comply with the editorial guidelines, it is returned to the authors so that they can make the pertinent adjustments within a period of no less than 15 days.
  5. If the article is not relevant to the interest of the RCSO, it is rejected.
  6. Evaluation of Academic Peers: The article that is approved in the initial evaluation is sent to external evaluator pairs identified through a code, guaranteeing the double-blind process, that is, that the evaluators do not know the identity of the authors and the authors do not know the identity of the evaluators. The concept issued by the evaluating peers can be: (a) Approved; (b) Approved with minor modifications; (c) Approved with major modifications; (d) Not approved. In all cases, the evaluation will be sent to the authors in order to provide feedback on the work.

The evaluators have a period of 15 days from the acceptance of the evaluation to issue their concept.

The academic peers are selected according to their training and research interest from the RCSO database. Once they know the article entrusted for their evaluation, if they are presented, they must state the existence of conflicts of interest that prevent their objective evaluation so that the Editorial Committee of the Magazine definitively decides on their impartiality. The circumstances that may give rise to the declaration of conflict of interest may be:

  • The existence of consanguinity, affinity, or civil ties with the author.
  • Enmity with the author.
  • Have known as an evaluator, director, or tutor the research from which the research article is the result.

With the acceptance of the evaluation, the referees agree to maintain total confidentiality regarding the data, results or any other finding that by virtue of their work as evaluators of the article becomes known. Due to the above and in accordance with the Publications Ethics Committee, the reviewers may not make use of the arguments, data or any other discovery contained in the articles until they are published, always observing and preserving respect for copyright regulations. The evaluating peer who, in the exercise of his / her assignment, knows, detects or recognizes possible plagiarism must inform the Editor so that he/she can carry out the actions that may take place in accordance with the regulations for authors.

The corrections and suggestions sent to the authors must be made within the term of fifteen (15) days counted from the day following the submission of the original concept. After said period, if no information is received, it will be understood that the article has been withdrawn from the process by the author.