Peer Review Policy

 

Peer Review Process

1 Nature of Arbitration

Revista Ciencias del Mar UAS (CIMAR UAS) ensures the excellence and scientific validity of its publications through a rigorous external review process. We employ the double-blind peer review model, which ensures that:

  • The identity of the authors is unknown to the reviewers.

  • The identity of the reviewers is unknown to the authors.

This mutual anonymity minimizes bias, guarantees impartiality, and ensures an objective evaluation based exclusively on scientific merit, manuscript quality, and its contribution to the field of marine sciences.

2 Phases of the Editorial Process

I. Preliminary Review (Desk Review)

Upon submission, the Editorial Team performs an initial "screening" to verify:

  • Alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope.

  • Strict compliance with the Author Guidelines (formatting, style, and references).

  • Results from plagiarism detection software.

Manuscripts that do not pass this phase will be returned to the author for correction or rejected without proceeding to external evaluation.

II. Assignment of Reviewers

Once the preliminary phase is passed, the Editor assigns the manuscript to three (3) external reviewers, recognized experts with established academic trajectories in the specific subject area of the study. Reviewers are selected based on criteria of suitability, technical competence, and absence of conflicts of interest.

III. Evaluation Criteria

The three reviewers will evaluate the manuscript under international standards, considering:

  • Originality, novelty, and relevance of the research.

  • Methodological rigor and clarity in the presentation of results.

  • Quality of the discussion and timeliness of the bibliographic references.

  • Compliance with bioethical and animal welfare standards (if applicable).

3 Editorial Decision and Possible Outcomes

Based on the critical assessment of the academic quality of the content, the evaluation process will consolidate the three reports received with the following possible outcomes:

  • Accept Submission: The article is accepted for publication without changes.

  • Revisions Required (Minor): The manuscript requires slight adjustments before final acceptance.

  • Resubmit for Review (Major): A deep revision is required, potentially followed by a new round of evaluation after the changes are made.

  • Decline Submission (Rejected): The article will not be published due to the technical or academic deficiencies indicated in the review.

4 Dispute Resolution

In cases of dispute—either because the reports from the three reviewers are contradictory or because the author expresses a well-founded disagreement with the decision—a fourth additional reviewer will be appointed.

If the dispute persists after this new evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief, with the support of the Editorial and Scientific Committee, will make the final decision and issue a qualified concept regarding the publication or rejection of the article.

5 Editorial Timelines

CIMAR UAS is committed to maintaining an agile and transparent editorial workflow. The estimated time for the first decision following peer review is two weeks.