Peer-review process

Peer Review Process
The journal follows a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality and excellence of the published papers. Our peer review policy is based on the following aspects:
1. Receipt of articles:
- Authors are invited to submit their articles to the journal through our online platform.
- Authors should review and adjust their manuscripts to the submission requirements and author guidelines.
2. Receipt and assignment:
- Each article will have a unique ID that is assigned on the OJS platform, which will allow identification of the article throughout the editorial process.
- Once an article is received, the editor-in-chief or assigned editor performs a preliminary review to evaluate whether it meets the journal's criteria, such as thematic relevance, alignment with the focus and scope of the journal, and compliance with editorial standards.
- If the article meets the initial requirements, at least 2 external reviewers, with expertise in the field of study of the article, will be assigned.
3. Double-blind peer review:
- Peer review in our journal is conducted under the principle of double-blind anonymity, which means that both reviewers and authors remain anonymous during the review process.
- The reviewers selected for each article are recognized experts in the field and are not part of the editorial board of the journal or of the institution to which the authors belong.
- The reviewers evaluate the article critically, taking into account its originality, methodology, results, interpretations and contributions to the field of study.
4. Evaluation and comments:
- Reviewers conduct a thorough evaluation of the article, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and providing constructive comments to improve the quality and clarity of the paper.
- The reviewers' comments and suggestions are sent to the editor assigned to the article, who will review them and send them to the corresponding author in a confidential manner.
5. Decision making:
- Once the review reports are submitted, the editor-in-chief or assigned editor evaluates the reviewers' comments and recommendations.
- An editorial decision is made based on the quality and scientific relevance of the article, considering the reviewers' comments.
- Editorial decisions may include: accepting without modifications, accepting with minor or major revisions, requesting a new revised version, or rejecting the article:
(a) Accepting the article, notifying the author within the established deadline.
b) Accepting the article with comments, notifying the author within the established deadline about the comments and the deadline for incorporating them. The Editor reserves the right to delay the publication of the article if there is a delay in the second submission.
c) Reject the article, notifying the author, who has the option of requesting a detailed report on its status.
6. Communication with authors:
- A notification is sent to the authors about the editorial decision, accompanied by the reviewers' comments and suggestions.
- In case of requested revisions, a deadline for submission of the revised version is provided.
7. Review of revised versions:
- Upon receipt of the revised version, the editor-in-chief or assigned editor evaluates whether the reviewers' comments have been adequately addressed.
- If deemed necessary, the article may be resubmitted to the peer reviewers for review.