Peer Review Process

Scientific Evaluation Policy

The peer review process is a fundamental mechanism in the academic and scientific fields that ensures the quality, credibility, and validity of research work before publication. This procedure involves the critical evaluation of a manuscript by experts in the relevant field, who provide comments and suggestions to improve the content, methodology, and presentation of the study.

This journal adheres to the peer review process because it is essential for the self-regulation of the scientific community and acts as a quality filter. It protects against the publication of misleading research, promotes trust in scientific findings, and ensures that only studies meeting the rigorous standards of the discipline are accessible to the public and other researchers.

Objectives

  • Quality verification:
    • Ensures that the research meets scientific quality standards.
    • Assesses methodological soundness and the validity of results.
  • Improvement of the original:
    • Provides constructive feedback to enhance the clarity and rigor of the work.
    • Identifies possible errors or omissions.
  • Validation of originality:
    • Verifies that the work is original and does not plagiarize previous research.
    • The journal uses plagiarism detection software (e.g., Similarity Check) to verify the originality of all submissions prior to peer review.
    • Ensures that the study contributes significantly to existing knowledge.

 

Process Steps

  • Submission
    1. Registration of the corresponding author on the platform.
    2. Submission of the manuscript. The author submits the manuscript to the journal.
    3. The editorial coordinator checks the submission files (the main file must be anonymized) and ensures alignment with the journal’s scope.
  • Editorial committee review
    1. The Editor-in-Chief selects a Section Editor and assigns the submission.
    2. The Section Editor selects two experts in the relevant field to conduct the review.
  • Scientific peer review
    1. Two scientific review reports are requested for the submission.
    2. Reviewers proposed by the editorial committee must:
      1. Be external to the institution and the editorial board.
      2. Be a researcher with experience and deep knowledge in the subject.
      3. Have scientific publications within the last two years.

 

Conflict of Interest

Before accepting the review, reviewers must declare that they have no conflict of interest. A conflict of interest for a reviewer arises when any personal, professional, or financial interest could influence their judgment and evaluation of a manuscript, compromising the impartiality and objectivity of the review. This conflict may be real, potential, or perceived, and must be disclosed to ensure transparency and credibility in the review process.

A conflict of interest will be understood to exist when the reviewer’s ability to objectively evaluate the assigned document may be compromised. In such cases, the reviewer must decline the review due to:

  • financial interests (e.g., professional competition),
  • personal interests (e.g., friendships or enmities with the authors),
  • academic interests (e.g., previous collaborations).

If the reviewer accepts the review, they commit to writing a report using the provided template, evaluating the relevance of the research, its contribution and originality, relevance and timeliness of the topic, methodological soundness and reproducibility, clarity and coherence of the structure and writing, justification and use of bibliographic references, the significance of the results, and the clarity of the conclusions.

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision with modifications, or rejection of the manuscript. In all cases, their verdict will serve as a tool for the final decision on the submission, which will be made by the editorial committee.

In the case of contradictory reports, a third review will be requested from another specialist. This review round may be repeated at the discretion of the editorial committee if the requested modifications are significant.

  • Communication with the author

    The Section Editor reviews the reviewers’ reports and communicates one of the following decisions to the corresponding author, with justification:

    • Acceptance without modifications.

      Example decision: After peer review and analysis by the Editorial Committee, the submission has been accepted for publication without further modifications. The reviewers positively assessed the methodological rigor, the relevance of the topic, and the originality of the results. The submission aligns with the journal’s aims and editorial lines and meets the required standards of scientific quality and writing. The manuscript will proceed to the production phase.

      1. If a revision is required, the authors must modify the original and respond to the reviewers' comments by submitting a "review response letter" and indicating in the new original the changes made.

    • Accepted with modifications (major or minor).

      Example decision: After peer review, the Editorial Committee considers that the submission has sufficient merit for eventual publication but requires adjustments before final acceptance. The following aspects must be corrected or further developed:

      1. Clarify the theoretical justification of the methodological approach.
      2. Improve the organization of the results and their discussion.
      3. Correct formal errors and improve writing in certain sections.

      Authors are requested to carefully review the attached comments and submit a revised version of the manuscript along with a response letter detailing the changes made and justifying any suggestions not incorporated. The submission will be subject to a new evaluation upon receipt of the revised version.

    • Rejected.

      Example decision: The Editorial Committee, after considering the peer review reports, has decided to reject the submission for the following reasons:

      • The manuscript presents methodological deficiencies that compromise the validity of the results.
      • The argumentative structure is weak and does not clearly establish the contribution to the field of study.
      • The focus of the submission does not align with the journal’s editorial lines or quality standards.
      • Despite some positive aspects, the issues identified prevent its acceptance in its current form, even with major revisions.

      We thank you for your interest in our journal and wish you success in disseminating your work through other scientific platforms.

    • Author’s response to revisions

      The author will review the outcome of the scientific evaluation and decide on the suggestions, incorporating those deemed appropriate into the research and justifying those that are not. This response must be submitted in a document along with the revised manuscript.

      At all times, the author is free to contact the editorial committee to clarify any issues related to this process.

 

Type of Review

The journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, meaning that neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities. However, authors always have the opportunity to discuss the results of the scientific evaluation with the editorial committee.

This method aims to:

      • eliminate bias and ensure impartial evaluation.
      • Promote transparency and accountability in the review process.
      • Ensure the quality and integrity of the research.
      • Encourage the continuous improvement of scientific work.
      • Help maintain the credibility of the scientific literature.

While the journal currently employs a double-blind peer review system, it remains open to exploring open peer review practices in the future. These may include the publication of reviewer reports or the disclosure of reviewer identities with their consent, in alignment with transparency and accountability principles.

 

Reviewer Guidelines and Responsibilities

    • Qualifications and selection
      • Editors will select reviewers based on their expertise and specific knowledge related to the manuscript’s subject.
      • Reviewers must have deep knowledge and experience in the journal’s thematic area.
      • They must have relevant publications and be recognized in their field of study.

    • Confidentiality
      • Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents.
      • They must not share, discuss, or disclose the manuscript’s content with third parties without the editor’s express permission.

    • Conflicts of interest
      • Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including personal, financial, or competitive relationships with the authors or the manuscript content.
      • If a significant conflict of interest exists, reviewers must decline the review.

    • Impartiality and objectivity
      • Reviewers must provide a fair and objective evaluation, free from personal bias.
      • Criticism should be constructive and aimed at improving the manuscript.
      • Comments and recommendations must be clear, concise, and supported by evidence.
      • Reviewers must avoid personal or derogatory remarks.

    • Responsibility and timeliness
      • Acceptance of the review: reviewers should only accept to review manuscripts if they have sufficient expertise and time to conduct a thorough and timely review.
      • Deadlines: reviewers must submit their evaluations within the deadline set by the editor.

    • Scientific integrity
      • Plagiarism detection: reviewers must be alert to any signs of plagiarism or self-plagiarism and report them to the editor, ensuring that all sources and citations are properly referenced.
      • Methodology and data: reviewers must evaluate the validity of the methodology used and the interpretation of the data. They should point out possible errors, inconsistencies, or methodological shortcomings.

    • Handling of scientific misconduct

      The journal follows the guidelines set by nonprofit organizations that promote ethical standards in academic publishing, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and Creative Commons, in handling cases of scientific misconduct. This includes, but is not limited to:

      • Plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
      • Data fabrication or falsification.
      • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
      • Ethical violations in research involving human or animal subjects.
      • Suspected misconduct will be investigated by the editorial board and may result in manuscript rejection, retraction of published articles, or notification to the authors’ institutions.

    • Communication with authors and editors
      • Review report: the report must be detailed and provide clear recommendations regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript.
      • Comments should be constructive and aimed at improving the quality of the work.

    • Reviewer Recognition

      The journal values the essential contribution of peer reviewers. As a token of appreciation, reviewers may receive:

      • Annual certificates of recognition.
      • Optional acknowledgment on the journal’s website.
      • Integration of review activity with platforms such as ORCID and Web of Science researcher profiles (ResearcherID).
      • These initiatives aim to formally recognize the time and expertise dedicated to the peer review process.

    • Follow-Up
      • Reviewers should be available to conduct additional reviews if the manuscript is revised and resubmitted.
      • They must act with integrity and professionalism at all times.

    • Compliance and ethics
      • Reviewers must adhere to the ethical codes established by the journal.
      • They must act with integrity and professionalism at all times.
      • The journal is committed to using inclusive, gender-neutral, and accessible language in all communications. Authors and reviewers are encouraged to avoid biased expressions and to ensure clarity and respect in their writing. Technical terms should be explained when necessary to ensure accessibility for a multidisciplinary readership.

    • Ongoing Training

      Reviewers should stay up to date in their field of expertise and in best practices for peer review.