Editorial and Peer Review

Article Arbitration

Articles shall be submitted to an editorial review and selection process, through double-blind arbitration conducted by experts in the different fields and subjects addressed by the journal. This process consists of four reviews:

a. First review, the editorial team will determine if the article meets the general criteria described above, and is entitled to reject an article, without the opinion of external reviewers.

b. Second review, articles shall be submitted to two anonymous reviewers, external to the University, specialized in the subject of the work. The identity of both, author and reviewer shall remain confidential. This is known as a “double blind” evaluation. Should there be no consensus among reviewers to accept the article (as submitted or with revisions) or reject it, it shall be delivered to a third external reviewer. Reviewers have a maximum of one month to complete their task.

c. Third review, based on the comments and suggestions of reviewers, the final decision is restricted to: accepting the article, revise it, or reject it. Authors will receive feedback from reviewers and use it to correct and revise their manuscripts. This is compulsory for publication. As from the date of feedback submission, authors have two weeks to complete the revision, once completed, the revised manuscript must be submitted to the editor.

d. Fourth revision, checks that feedback delivered by reviewers has been considered; if so, the manuscript is accepted, and the author receives a certificate or letter indicating that his or her article has passed the evaluation process and is awaiting publication, otherwise, the article is rejected.

The author shall be informed on the editorial decision within eight months as from the date of receipt. However, deadlines will depend on the complexity of the subject and the availability of expert reviewers.