Sistema de arbitraje

Arbitration System

Double-Blind Peer Review Process: Detailed Steps

The double-blind peer review process (anonymous double-blind arbitration system) ensures the quality, originality, and scientific rigor of manuscripts prior to publication. The main steps of the process are outlined below:

1. Start of the Double-Blind Peer Review

Once the manuscript passes the initial editorial screening, the review stage begins under the double-blind system.

2. Assignment of External Reviewers

The anonymous manuscript (with both reviewers and authors unaware of each other’s identities) is assigned to two external reviewers, both national and international, who are experts in the article’s subject area.
Reviewers are selected from a pool of recognized researchers whose expertise is validated through previous publications and participation in research projects.

3. Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using a rubric that includes general and specific criteria, organized as follows:

3.1. General Criteria

  • Type of article: Appropriate classification of the manuscript.

  • Relevance and originality: Assessment of the topic and its impact.

  • Pertinence of citations: Quality of paraphrasing and use of references.

  • Presentation of tables and figures: Clarity, analysis, and relevance of visual data.

3.2. Specific Criteria

  • Title: Evaluation of structure and clarity in relation to the topic.

  • Abstract: Analysis of its components (introduction, methodology, findings, and conclusions) and semantic coherence.

  • Keywords: Appropriate use of key terms written as words or nominal phrases.

  • Introduction: Review of the research problem, state of the art, relevant references, clear objectives, and coherent structure (chronological or thematic).

  • Materials and Methods: Precision in describing methodologies, type of research, approach, sample, design, and use of instruments.

  • Results: Organization of information, coherence of variables, validity of tables and illustrations, and credibility of findings.

  • Discussion: Scientific rigor, comparison with previous studies, evidence of results, and critical analysis.

  • Conclusions: Alignment with the objectives and purpose of the manuscript, as well as with the title.

  • References: Compliance with citation standards (70% from the last 5 years, 30% from the last 2 years), predominance of scientific articles, and consistency between in-text citations and reference list.

3.3. Additional Observations

Reviewers may include extra comments to improve the manuscript.

3.4. Final Decision

  • Publish without modifications: Direct approval.

  • Publish with essential modifications: Publication subject to author revisions.

  • Do not publish: Rejection of the manuscript for failing to meet required criteria.

4. Review Report Deadline

Reviewers must submit their report within the established timeframe to ensure the editorial process is completed properly and on schedule.
In case of conflicting reviewer decisions, a third evaluation is requested to resolve discrepancies.

This process ensures transparency and objectivity in the selection of scientific articles, promoting the journal’s academic quality and rigor.

The Editorial Committee makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript (see editorial workflow: https://revmic.com/index.php/IC/util/flujo-editorial)