About the peer review process

 

CienCiMed follows the policy of double-blind peer review, a process in which neither the reviewer nor the author have any data that allows them to be identified; special care is taken with the established ethical standards to avoid conflicts of interest. The journal has the collaboration of external evaluators outside the publishing institution.

The evaluation process of the articles is fully automated, and the author can receive and exchange with the editorial committee, as well as follow the evolution of the process, necessarily through the electronic platform (Open Journal System).

Each work is submitted to the consideration of two or more referees who issue the verdict of the scientific articles sent by the authors, which comply with the publication standards. The author responsible for the correspondence will receive notification of receipt of the manuscript, with his identification number, which he must use from that moment on.

The articles are received by the director, who performs the first reading and determines whether the manuscript complies with the general requirements according to the publication standards of the journal and submits it to evaluation in a specialized plagiarism detector; The same is forwarded to the section editors and these to each of the pairs of referees or trios, if a third evaluation is necessary.

If these requirements are not met, methodological deficiencies are present or the general requirements of content, form and structure are not met, according to the publication standards of the journal. The director or executive editor determines whether the editorial course continues or is rejected. In this case, it will be returned to the author for correction before beginning the evaluation process.

The maximum time agreed by the journal is 30 working days. The date of receipt of the article will not begin to count until it is correctly received. The responsible author is notified so that he can correct these first observations. Peer review will only be initiated for manuscripts that meet the required requirements.

The director or executive editor and/or the section editor maintain contact with the reviewers, the section editor selects the pairs of evaluators and controls the times and the evaluation cycle. First, the reviewer is asked about availability and once accepted, a period of 30 working days is given, extendable only upon express request. If necessary, a third evaluator will be requested. The executive editor receives feedback by systematically and externally contacting him through the criteria of the users.

Compliance with the methodological requirements of the different types of articles:

 

• Originality, novelty and validity of the proposed study.
• Methodological and content quality of the work.
• Compliance with ethical and anti-plagiarism standards.
• 70% of bibliographical references updated.
• Importance for research or practice in the field addressed.

Each referee is sent a guide to facilitate the review, where they must define one of the following categories: accept this submission, publishable with modifications, re-evaluable or not publishable.

The observations and suggestions of the Editorial Board and the reviewers will be sent to the responsible author, who must respond as soon as possible (maximum 30 days).

The Editorial Committee will issue the final decision to publish the manuscript, taking into consideration the decision of the referees.

Once the manuscript is accepted, it is sent to editing and style correction and then goes to production to prepare the proofs. Once the author gives his approval to upload the galley proof, it will not be removed from the platform.

 

About the evaluation process

Manuscripts accepted after the first evaluation will be subject to peer review. If the document is accepted with modifications, the authors will have up to 30 calendar days to return it with the corrections; otherwise, they will have to make a new submission and the process will begin again. The Editorial Team is committed to giving a verdict on the evaluation process within a period of no more than 120 days.

 

 Evaluation cycle for articles and participants

The evaluation process involves referees and editors. The evaluation period must not exceed 120 days; within this period, the authors will be informed of the conclusion of the evaluation of the articles; they have 30 working days to make the corrections suggested by the referees or editors; if not, the editorial committee has the power to withdraw the article from the journal for contravention of the provisions.

The decision to accept, accept with modifications, or reject is communicated by the editor to the author. In the case of rejection, the editor sends the results of the evaluation to the contact author, along with the reviewers' suggestions regarding improvements that could be applied to the article. If accepted, the article moves on to the editorial processing stage.

 The maximum time for publication of an article from its submission, if accepted, is one year.