Para revisores

MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION GUIDELINES FOR EXTERNAL REVIEWERS

The QuantUNAB Board of Reviewers is a collegiate body made up of national and foreign experts of great prestige in their areas, which guarantees the quality of the publications in this scientific journal by evaluating articles under the double-blind scheme. This team is in charge of issuing its criteria on the novelty, rigor, relevance and impact of the articles that are submitted for evaluation.
The evaluation of the manuscript is carried out by a group of experts, which allows the selection of the best articles to be published. On the other hand, the author gets an objective report of his strengths and weaknesses.
The review process is confidential, and all those involved undertake to maintain it, as well as to require it from those who, in one way or another, are consulted on any manuscript or topic. Reviewers will maintain objectivity and accuracy in their comments, which will respect elementary standards of courtesy among colleagues. The entire review process is carried out through the OJS 3 platform.

1. Acceptance / rejection criteria for the evaluation of the manuscript
The Editors of QuantUNAB request, by invitation, the collaboration of the Reviewer who they consider empowered to carry out the evaluation of the manuscript, given their knowledge and experience on the subject, as well as their interests in the research area. The participation of the Reviewers is essential in the process of sending reports to the authors on the publication deadlines and processes. However, acceptance to evaluate a manuscript is related to: 

  • Knowledge and experience in the subject of the article. The Reviewer must have the necessary skills to give their opinion on the content of the manuscript.
  • Time availability. Reviewing and evaluating a manuscript requires hours of work and analysis.
  • Conflict of interests. If the Reviewer detects that there are conflicts of interest due to the suspicion of loss of anonymity of the authors, or that there may be closeness with the University or research group, as well as some personal or professional relationship, this incident must be recorded as a justification for refusing to perform the review.
  • Confidentiality commitment. The receipt of a manuscript under review implies a commitment to its confidentiality, so the Reviewer cannot share it with third parties. Any doubt that exists about an additional opinion of another person must be consulted previously with the Editor.  

If for any of the reasons mentioned above, the Reviewer cannot carry out the evaluation process of the manuscript, he or she must notify the Editor through the platform, indicating the reasons for which the invitation was rejected.

2. Revision
The task of the external reviewer, as a blind peer, is to objectively and constructively analyze the content of the manuscript to collaborate with the editors in making decisions: if the work under review contains parameters of high scientific quality and meets all the parameters to be accepted and later publish.
Reviewers will provide a technical report of the manuscript to associate editors. This report contains the criteria of quality, originality, clarity and relevance of the article.

3. General criteria for evaluating the manuscript
The general criteria that the Reviewer must evaluate in the manuscript focus on four axes:

  • Originality of the manuscript. Given that technology constantly advances, our journal seeks originality and novelty in each of the manuscripts received. The Reviewer can make use of tools such as Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, among other scientific sources, to see the importance and relevance of the research topic. The central theme of the manuscript must be novel and relevant, so that it is attractive to the scientific community; This should be specific and covered in detail throughout the article. The summary is a very important element of the document, it should describe in a few words the work carried out, highlight the most relevant points of the work and include a brief synthesis of the main conclusions reached, without covering them all. The introduction should contain the current state of the problem (related works or state of the art), including the most relevant similar studies and highlighting their approaches, pros and cons. In addition, it correctly indicates what the investigation consists of, the proposed objectives, background and hypotheses.
  • Rigor of the manuscript. The methodology must be accurately described with the procedure performed during the design, experimentation and testing of the hypothesis. Present the resources, materials and methods used in each part of the process in a timely manner. The results should clearly explain the work product, where measurement or quantification data can be presented. The discussion interprets the results according to similar studies, that is, it must correlate the results of the study with others carried out and state advantages and contributions, avoiding adjectives that extol the results. Regarding the revision of the references, it must be done exhaustively, so that the relevant works are not omitted from the document. These references must correspond to research on the subject and current affairs.
  • Clarity of the manuscript. Regarding the language, if the manuscript presents syntactic and / or semantic grammatical errors in Spanish or English, which make it difficult to read and understand, the Reviewer should not proceed with the revision. In this case, the Editor must be informed so that the article is returned to the author and, where appropriate, is sent in compliance with the parameters required by the regulations. Regarding the use of tables and figures, the reviewer will determine their relevance to clarify the text of the article (number and form).
  • Relevance of the manuscript. The conclusions should specify what results were obtained and if they allowed to achieve the objectives, propose study perspectives, application of the results and future work. Finally, at this point, it will be evaluated if the research carried out contributes to the state of the art in an adequate way.

4. Ethical issues

The Reviewers undertake to confidentially notify the Editors of any suspicion of unethical conduct or fraud in the results of the manuscripts, such as the detection of total or partial plagiarism, citing the original work when possible.

5. Thanks to the reviewers

We thank all those who have served as reviewers.