Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

This section aims to guide reviewers participating in the peer review process. This procedure seeks to ensure impartiality, fairness, and scientific rigor in the evaluation of manuscripts.

Role of the Reviewer in the Editorial Decision-Making Process

Peer review provides essential support to the editorial board in making decisions regarding publication. Through communication between the editorial board and authors, it contributes to the improvement of manuscripts. Experienced and active reviewers within the academic community are expected to take on their fair share of reviews, collaborating with the quality of scientific communication.

The reviewer's report should be based exclusively on a critical assessment of the manuscript's scientific quality and present clear, constructive arguments that assist the Editor in deciding whether to accept the work, request revisions (minor or major), or reject it.

Fundamental Ethical Principles

Reviewers must base their actions on the following principles:

  • Impartiality: Judge the manuscript solely on its scientific merit, without influence related to the identity or affiliations of the authors.

  • Confidentiality: Treat all submitted content as restricted information, without sharing it or using it for personal purposes prior to publication.

  • Prompt disclosure of conflicts of interest: Inform the editorial board of any professional, collaborative, competitive, financial, or personal relationship that may compromise objectivity, declaring recusal when necessary.

Furthermore, reviewers must:

  • Preserve anonymity: Refrain from attempting to identify the authors or making references that reveal their authorship.

  • Maintain respect and objectivity: Offer technical, well-founded, and courteous criticism, avoiding personal or derogatory comments.

  • Ensure non-appropriation of ideas: Refrain from using data, ideas, or unpublished materials obtained during the evaluation process, except with the express authorization of the authors.

  • Ensure proper acknowledgment of sources: Indicate relevant works not cited and alert to possible substantial overlap with already published works.

Conduct Regarding Conflicts and Doubts

In cases of conflict of interest, technical inability to review, or impossibility of meeting the deadline, the reviewer should immediately notify the editorial board and decline the invitation.

If there are relevant technical doubts or a need to consult other specialists, these requests should be forwarded to the Editor, who will decide on the appointment of additional reviewers, while maintaining anonymity and confidentiality.

Allegations involving potential ethical violations, including author misconduct, plagiarism, data manipulation, inappropriate reviewer behavior, or improper actions by editorial board members, will be handled according to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Evaluation Criteria and Procedures

When preparing the report, reviewers should consider the manuscript's originality, relevance, clarity, organization, formal compliance, as well as the appropriateness of the methodology, robustness of results, quality of discussion, and relevance of references.

It is recommended to conduct a preliminary reading for a general understanding of the text, followed by a detailed critical reading of each section, recording strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions for improvement in the journal's evaluation form.

The report must present clear justifications, indicate the suggested editorial decision (e.g., accept, revise, or reject), and strictly respect confidentiality, avoiding any information that reveals the identity of the reviewer or the authors, as the journal adopts a double-blind peer review system.

Practical Recommendations for Useful Reports

  • Avoid vague evaluations; provide specific and actionable comments (e.g., "the methodology section needs to detail the sampling criteria and the sample size calculation").

  • Balance criticism with acknowledgment of the work's strengths.

  • Tailor the evaluation to the type of study (qualitative research requires different criteria than quantitative).

  • Strictly adhere to agreed deadlines; if unable to meet the deadline or if unqualified to review, notify the editorial board promptly.

  • Inform the Editor of any suspicion of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or substantial overlap with existing works.