External peer evaluation process

Peer review process

The journal, for being arbitrated, performs rigorous evaluation and validation of the candidate manuscripts, so the estimated time for the optimal development of these processes and procedures comprises between two and five months, of course, depending on the quantity and quality of the postulated manuscripts.

In the first instance, the Editorial Committee of the journal evaluates and decides on the acceptance or rejection of the postulated manuscripts, based on compliance with the policies, criteria, provisions and conditions (compliance with the Guide for authors of the UNIMAR Magazine) that the publication has established for the initial acceptance of the scriptural contributions. Both the affirmative and negative provisions will be communicated to the authors, who will know the reasons why the manuscript was accepted or rejected.

In the second instance, the editor of the journal, together with the Editorial Committee, selects those manuscripts that meet the qualifications required by the publication, classifying them later according to their area and subject matter, with the purpose of assigning two peer reviewers; -this, in coherence with the evaluation system adopted by the journal, which is the double-blind, who, through the evaluation format prepared for said procedure, will make the observations and suggestions to which it may arise, expressing whether or not it can be published, or if it needs to improve certain elements for its possible publication, or on the contrary, it is not accepted for publication in the magazine. The Editorial Committee receives the concepts of the peer reviewers and takes the disposition regarding the definitive publication of the article.

The editor sends to each peer reviewer the Guide for peer reviewers of the journal, as well as, the evaluation format corresponding to the submitted manuscript (research article, review or reflection), for the timely development of the evaluation process. They are assigned a period of two to three weeks to prepare and send the concept. It is worth mentioning that in the evaluation format, the peers are asked to indicate if the manuscript meets the conditions and criteria, both in form and content required by the journal. In addition, they will elaborate a general concept about the manuscript, including suggestions, observations and contributions; subsequently, they may recommend the publication of the manuscript, either without any modification, with some modifications, with profound modifications, or by no means.

Once the editor receives the concepts of the two peer reviewers, it prepares a detailed report of the evaluation process, to be sent to the authors, which compiles the observations and suggestions of the peers, of course, deleting any information that may reveal and identify the evaluators of the manuscript. Once the authors have the evaluation report of their manuscript, they will make the necessary modifications and adjustments, to be subsequently sent to the editor, who assigns a fair date -according to the modifications, corrections and adjustments- for the delivery of this second version of the manuscript. In the event that the authors decide not to continue with the publication process of the manuscript, it will be removed from the journal's database.

In the case of manuscripts rejected completely by the peer reviewers, the authors will be informed that their manuscript will be removed from the process, from the journal's databases, and additionally, the evaluation report will be sent with the concepts that the pairs determined for making this decision.

Once the authors have sent the second version of the manuscript, improved and taking into account all the observations, adjustments and other suggestions made by the peer reviewers, the editor sends them this second version of the manuscript, anonymously, with the purpose of verifying if the suggested changes and adjustments were made by the authors, and he asks them to evaluate this second version of the manuscript, and to inform the editor if it is in optimum conditions to be published without any other modification, or if, on the contrary, the authors will have to rewrite the writing if they want their publication.

For the final preparation of the manuscript, the editor receives the concepts of the peer reviewers. In the case in which both peers consider that the writing can be published, the editor sends these concepts, together with the final version of the manuscript, to the Editorial Committee, with the purpose of verifying the rigor and quality of the process and, likewise, make a determination regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript for publication. It is worth mentioning that in the case that the concepts of the two peer reviewers with respect to the manuscript are contradictory and controversial, a third evaluator will be appointed to issue a concept that allows solving the impasse. On the other hand, in the event that one of the peer reviewers considers that the manuscript is not yet ready for publication, the editor will send the new observations and recommendations of the manuscript to the authors, until the writing is ready.

It is possible that the authors respond to the comments and observations made by the peer reviewers, with the purpose of explaining and justifying that some suggested adjustments will not be taken into account, so a blind dialogue is established between authors and peer reviewers, to discuss the relevance and significance of the observations and suggested adjustments, mediated by the editor and / or the Editorial Committee of the journal.