Peer Review Policy
Model adopted by this journal: Pre-publication · Double-blind peer review · The editor mediates all interactions · Reviews are not published · Facilitated by the journal.
Structure of the editorial process
1. Manuscript submission
Contributions must be submitted exclusively through the journal's OJS platform. Received manuscripts will be registered and subjected to a preliminary review by the Editor-in-Chief.
2. Preliminary editorial review (deadline: one week)
Before initiating external peer review, the Editor-in-Chief will verify that the manuscript:
• Aligns with the journal's focus, scope, and editorial objectives.
• Complies with the author guidelines and established submission standards.
• Adheres to the principles of academic integrity and ethical research.
• Successfully passes the document similarity assessment using specialized text matching tools.
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected or returned for revisions before being sent for external review.
3. Appointment of Associate Editor
Manuscripts that pass the preliminary review will be assigned to an Associate Editor responsible for coordinating the evaluation process.
The appointed individual must act with academic and editorial independence, abstaining from participation when any conflict of interest arises from personal, professional, institutional, or collaborative relationships with the authors or entities associated with the manuscript.
4. Selection and Invitation of Reviewers (deadline: two week)
The Associate Editor will identify and invite at least two external specialists with proven experience in the subject matter addressed by the manuscript.
Invited reviewers will have 15 calendar days to accept or decline the invitation through the OJS platform. If no response is received, new reviewers will be sought.
5. External Peer Review (deadline: six to eight weeks)
The review will be conducted under a double-blind review process and will consider, among other aspects:
• Originality and contribution to knowledge.
• Scientific, academic, or social relevance.
• Methodological rigor.
• Argumentative coherence and quality of discussion.
• Appropriateness and currency of bibliographic references.
• Compliance with policies on academic integrity, research ethics, and responsible use of artificial intelligence technologies.
The reviewers will issue reasoned observations and an editorial recommendation. The standard review period is up to eight weeks.
6. Editorial Decision
Based on the reviews received and their own academic assessment, the Associate Editor will issue an editorial recommendation, which will be communicated to the Editor-in-Chief.
The possible decisions are:
• Accepted without modifications.
• Accepted with minor modifications.
• Accepted with major modifications.
• Rejected.
Confidentiality
All information related to the manuscripts received will be treated with strict confidentiality. The contents submitted to evaluation, the opinions issued and the identity of the reviewers will not be disclosed to third parties, except when required by legal provisions or by expressly applicable institutional policies.
In compliance with COPE guidelines, reviewers:
• They will not share the content of the manuscript with third parties or discuss it without express authorization from the journal.
• They will not use privileged information obtained during the process for personal benefit or that of third parties.
• They will not upload or process unpublished manuscripts in external artificial intelligence tools without express authorization from the journal and verifiable guarantees of confidentiality.
• They will maintain the confidentiality of the process even once the evaluation is completed, unless they have the express permission of the authors and the journal.
Ethical responsibilities of reviewers
The reviewers undertake to:
• Only accept reviews for which they have sufficient academic competence.
• Promptly declare any conflict of interest and decline the review if said conflict cannot be resolved.
• Issue objective, well-founded, constructive and respectful evaluations, aimed at improving work.
• Maintain the confidentiality of the reviewed materials.
• Refrain from using information obtained during the process for personal benefit or that of third parties.
• Inform the journal about possible plagiarism practices, redundant publication, data manipulation or any conduct contrary to academic integrity.
• Respond promptly to invitations and communicate any changes in your availability that prevent you from meeting the agreed deadline.
• Do not suggest that authors include citations to their own work or that of collaborators for the sole purpose of increasing the citation count; Any recommendation must be supported by valid academic reasons.
The opinions must contribute to strengthening the scientific quality of the manuscript through clear, reasoned observations aimed at improving the work submitted for evaluation. Personal criticism directed at authors is inappropriate and inadmissible.
Peer Review Training and Mentoring
The journal recognizes the importance of continuing training in peer review. Reviewers are encouraged to take advantage of available resources and training programs in the area of editorial ethics, scientific review, and good publishing practices.
Review and update of the policy
This policy will be reviewed periodically by the Editorial Committee of the journal, with a minimum frequency of every three years, or when required by relevant changes in the international standards of ethics in scientific publication, in the indexing criteria or in the current institutional regulations of the Autonomous University of Sinaloa.
Reference regulatory framework
COPE Council. (2017). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (v.2). Committee on Publication Ethics. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
COPE Council. (2017). Who 'owns' peer reviews? Committee on Publication Ethics. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/discussion-document/who-owns-peer-reviews
Principles of Chapultepec. Declaration of ethics and good practices for the use and development of Artificial Intelligence. https://secihti.mx/ciencia-y-humanidades/principios-de-chapultepec-declaracion-de-etica-y-buenas-practicas-para-el-uso-y-desarrollo-de-la-inteligencia-artificial/
