Guidelines for peer reviewers

EVALUATION PROCESS

The reception of an article does not imply the obligation for its acceptance, nor commitment regarding the publication. The editorial team, to verify compliance with the specific rules of the articles, as well as the suitability and quality of the same, will review all papers received with the intention of being published in the journal initially. If the article does not comply with the editorial policies of the journal, it will be returned to the author to make the corresponding adjustments.

Articles that comply with all the guidelines set out in the instructions for authors will be sent to national and international peer reviewers of recognized experience, who will advance the double-blind evaluation process. The evaluators will have a maximum time of two weeks to issue a concept on the article and may make recommendations or request clarifications. According to the results of the peer evaluation, the Editorial Committee will decide whether or not to accept the articles for publication. The journal will send the concepts of evaluation in a period of four to eight months, depending on the number of manuscripts received.

The Editorial Committee will review the evaluations and recommendations of the evaluators and decide whether the article is "Accepted without modifications," "Accepted with modifications" or "Rejected." In any of the above cases, the author will be informed of the results of the review process. The author, according to the comments received, will make the arrangements in his article and send it again for later approval.

In case a positive and a negative evaluation are presented, the article will be sent to a third pair, to define the status of the same.

Accepted articles will go through a process of style correction and layout by the editing team, whose process may be subject to adjustments by the author. When you have the galley proof of the journal, the article will be sent to the authors for review and approval; this step is before printing the corresponding number.

GUIDE FOR REVIEWERS

To carry out the review process it is important to follow the following instructions:

  1. Read the article and complete the evaluation form.
  2. It is required that the annotations you make in the manuscript to be evaluated are made using a method that clearly differentiates your text from the author's text: uppercase letters, a different color text, or the Microsoft Word change control function.
  3. The review is double-blind type. If your name appears as a commentator, the information that identifies you will be deleted.
  4. Deadline: Reports must be sent within a maximum period of two weeks counted from this invitation.

BASIC PRINCIPLES TO WHICH PEER REVIEWERS SHOULD ADHERE ACCORDING TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE)

Peer reviewers should:

    • Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.
    • Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
    • Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. 
    • Declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
    • Not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
    • Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments.
    • Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner.
    • Provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
    • Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

In addition, reviewers should be asked to address ethical aspects of the submission such as:

    • Has the author published this research before?
    • Has the author plagiarized another publication?
    • Is the research ethical and have the appropriate approvals/consent been obtained?
    • Is there any indication that the data have been fabricated or inappropriately manipulated?
    • Have the authors declared all relevant competing interests?

References:

COPE. (2013). Committee on Publication Ethics: Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere. Recuperado de http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethicalguidelines-peer-reviewers

COPE. (2016). A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors. Recuperado de https://publicationethics.org/files/A_Short_Guide_to_Ethical_Editing.pdf