Guide for external pairs

Guide for peer reviewers

Article evaluation format:

Article Evaluation Format Type 1

Article Evaluation Format Type 2

Article Evaluation Format Type 3

Article Evaluation Format Type 4

Article Evaluation Format Type 5

Record sheet for evaluator

Revista UNIMAR, for being arbitrated, carries out rigorous evaluation and validation processes of the applicant manuscripts. Peer review is a process that allows to give validity, rigor, and scientific quality to the manuscripts that are postulated by different authors. The evaluation system adopted by the journal is double-blind.

This guide aims to guide the evaluation criteria contained in the evaluation formats implemented by Editorial UNIMAR for external peers who are part of the Arbitration Committee of the Revista UNIMAR of the Universidad Mariana. They are selected for their high and recognized scientific and human careers, and are in charge of carrying out the article evaluation process.

 

Peer Responsibilities

  • Carry out the evaluation rigorously, clearly, formally, and quickly. Fill out the evaluation format for the assigned article and deliver it on the dates established by the Editorial Board of the journal. The term for the reading and evaluation of the entrusted article is stipulated according to the delivery date of the article with each para evaluator.
  • Be objective in the criticism and constructive in the comments, justifying his/her statements and showing neutrality and respect for the work and its author.
  • Inform the editor in those cases in which there is a suspicion of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and/or fraud, that is, copying, self-copying, falsification, or manipulation of the research results.
  • Maintain confidentiality. He/she may not make use of the information in the manuscript that is evaluating (such as disclosure of results prior to their publication, or disclosure of the concepts developed) for personal benefit, make it known or make it available for the benefit of any other person or organization.
  • Report any potential conflicts of interest. If in reading the work he/she finds any ethical impediment or conflict of interest that may affect the issuance of the concept, he/she must inform the editor so that the document can be reassigned to another peer reviewer.
  • Endorse with his/her name the list of referees that will be included in the magazine. His/her name as a collaborating arbitrator will be visible in the general list of the Arbitration Committee, but it will not specify which item he/she assessed; in this way, his/her identity will be protected. The Arbitration Committee of the journal is rotating, that is, his/her name will be included as long as he/she has performed their work as an evaluator and it will be for a period of two years.
  • Sign the declaration of conflicts of interest.

 

Recommendations to take into account and facilitate the evaluation

It should be clarified that the peers evaluate: the quality, originality, and belonging of the content. The articles that are sent for evaluation by external peers have already passed the first phase of evaluation, since the Editorial Committee has selected in advance those manuscripts that meet the qualities required by the publication, classifying them according to their typology, which is considered as a document that presents the original and unpublished production, of scientific, technological or academic content, as follows:

  • Research result article: a document that presents the original and unpublished production, of scientific, technological, or academic content and, in detail, the original results of research processes. Preferably structured as follows: Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, and References.
  • Reflection article: a manuscript that presents research results from an analytical, interpretive, or critical perspective of the author, on a specific topic, using original sources.
  • Review article: manuscript resulting from research where the results of published research are analyzed, systematized, and integrated, into a field of study, in order to account for the progress and development trends. It is characterized by presenting a careful bibliographic review of at least 50 references from primary sources.

In addition, articles of other types are received, such as:

  • Short article: brief document that presents preliminary or partial original results of an investigation, which generally requires prompt dissemination.
  • Case reports: documents that show the results of a study on a particular situation, in order to publicize the technical and methodological experiences considered in a specific case, including a commented systematic review of the literature on analogous cases.
  • Topic review article: document resulting from the critical review of the literature on a particular topic.
  • Letters to the editor: critical, analytical, or interpretive positions on the documents published in the journal, which, in the opinion of the Editorial Committee, constitute an important contribution to the discussion of the subject by the reference scientific community.
  • Editorial: document written by the editor, any member of the Editorial Board, or by a person invited by the editor. The editorial may be related to current problems or new findings in the journal’s field of action.

In a general way, the aspects that will be found in the evaluation formats are summarized, in a way that allows him/her to have an idea of ​​the proposed evaluation; however, it should be noted that some articles such as reviews or reflection articles can adjust a similar structure, according to the proposal made by the author:

  • Title: clear, concrete, and precise.
  • Summary (Abstract): it will include the main objectives of the research, scope, methodology used, the most outstanding results, and the most outstanding conclusions; it should be clear, consistent, and succinct. Verify the quality of translations into English and Portuguese.
  • Introduction: it will mention the problem or objectives of the investigative process, alluding to the possible background under which the investigative work is based; equally, the type of methodology used is commented, a justification for its choice, in addition to the pertinent inclusion and requires bibliographic support to theoretically base this first approach to the content of the manuscript.
  • Methodology: it will include the design, techniques, and materials used in the research to obtain the results. It will clearly state the type of design, the type of sampling used, and/or statistical techniques and other instruments used to collect the information.
  • Results: it will present the results obtained from the investigative process, specifically, the contribution made to new knowledge, where the coherence between the objectives set at the beginning of the investigation and the information obtained through the data collection instruments is evidenced.
  • Discussion: this section presents those relations, interpretations, and recommendations that the results obtained indicate in parallel with other investigations, antecedents, and theories referring to the topic addressed.
  • Conclusions: they are written in a clear, concrete, and consistent manner with the themes developed in the manuscript, so they must show the precise arguments that justify and validate each one.
  • References: a list of bibliographic sources that were cited within the manuscript.

For each of these types of the article (see Table 1), Editorial UNIMAR and the Editorial Committee have created several evaluation formats, which aim to synthesize the most important aspects to be evaluated by external peers. In them, they can make observations and suggestions, and of course, express whether indeed a manuscript can be published, or if it needs to improve certain elements before publication, or on the contrary, it is not accepted for publication in the journal.

It should be clarified that the Editor and/or the Editorial Committee, once they know the concepts of the peer reviewers, make the final provisions regarding the approval or rejection of the article.

 

Table 1

Class of evaluation formats according to the type of article

Class of evaluation formats

Typology of article

Type 1

Research result article

Type 2

Review article 

Type 3

Reflection article 

Type 4

Topic review article

Type 5

Short article, Case report, Letters to the editor

It should be clarified that the communication established will be solely electronic; if required, videoconferences or any other similar form of the meeting may be scheduled.