GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEWER

The evaluation of the articles postulated for publication in the Journal 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 from the application of the call. The texts should be sent to the publication's email or to the editor's email. Along with the material, the document proving the transfer of rights, the declaration of originality and the absence of conflict of interest in the presentation of the respective manuscript must be sent.

2.Initial evaluation: implies the review and evaluation by the members of the Editorial Committee and the Editor, in this first evaluation the relevance of the document and compliance with the editorial guidelines are indicated.

3.Evaluation of Academic Peers: each article that obtains a favorable conceptualization in the initial evaluation, will be sent to two (2) external academic peer evaluators in order to render a concept on them. Likewise, the pairs will not have knowledge of the author or authors to be evaluated (Double-blind method).

 

• The concepts issued by the peer reviewers in relation to the articles examined may generate as a result: (a) Approved; (b) Approved with modifications; (c) Rejected.
• The items that the referee must qualify to offer the concept of evaluation are those provided in the evaluation instrument provided for this purpose by the Scientific and Editorial Committee of the Journal. The aforementioned items will have a rating on a scale of 1 to 10, in which 1 will be the minimum level of quality or compliance and 10 will be its total compliance and quality.
• In case of discrepancies between the concepts issued by the pairs:
• The text will be sent to a third peer evaluator, whose decision will be final.
• When both are approving and one requests merely formal modifications, the author (s) will be asked to make the pertinent corrections. The Editorial Committee will decide definitively on its publication.

 

4.The peer evaluation may be consulted by the author of the text at any time.

5.In the event that the result is approved with substantial and considerable modifications, the text must return to the evaluating peer that indicated said concept after the modifications made by the author, so that the peer gives final approval if applicable.

6.Corrections must be made within a term of ten (10) days from the day after the original concept was sent. After this period, if information is not received, it will be understood that the article has been withdrawn by the author of the process. If deemed appropriate, you may request that the text remain for the next edition in order to establish a longer period to make the modifications, which will be determined and communicated by the Editor.

7.The selection of the pairs is made according to the levels of study, recent publications and thematic specialty, in accordance with the bank that holds the Journal for that purpose.

8.Once the selected peers know the article entrusted for its evaluation, they must state the existence of conflicts of interest that prevent its objective evaluation, so that the Editorial Committee of the Journal decides definitively on its impartiality.

The circumstances that may give rise to the declaration of conflict of interest may be, among others:

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

9.With the acceptance of their order, the referees undertake to maintain total confidentiality regarding the data, results or any other finding that by virtue of their work as evaluators of the article they become knowledgeable. For the above and in accordance with the Ethics Committee in Publications, 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 maintaining respect for the regulations on copyright. .

 

10.The peer evaluator who, in the exercise of his / her assignment, knows, detects or recognizes a possible plagiarism must inform the Editor so that he / she can carry out the actions that may be taken in accordance with the REGULATION FOR AUTHORS.