1. CONFIDENTIALITY OF UNPUBLISHED RESULTS

An unpublished manuscript is a confidential document. The privacy policy of our journal requires every reviewer not to cite a manuscript or refer to what is described in it before it has been published; reviewers must also refrain from using the information for their own interests.

2. DEADLINES FOR PEER REVIEW

Reviews must be completed within no more than 21 calendar days. If the reviewer is unable to evaluate the manuscript within this period, they must inform the journal in a timely manner.

3. IMPARTIALITY OF THE REVIEW

The reviewer undertakes to review the manuscript impartially. If the reviewer considers that they cannot review a manuscript impartially, whether because of relationships with the authors or a potential conflict of interest, they must return the document with the corresponding explanation.

4. REVIEW CRITERIA

The review process of the journal Ciencia e Ingeniería assesses epistemic quality and provides the editorial committee with a well-founded judgment on the relevance and quality of the manuscript. The manuscript evaluation instrument designed for this purpose establishes standardized criteria in order to ensure a rigorous, objective evaluation process grounded in scientific and methodological parameters. The review report must derive from a critical and systematic reading of the text, identifying strengths, limitations, and aspects that require adjustment or reformulation. The following criteria guide the evaluation carried out by those who collaborate with the journal by providing their expert guidance and advice.

4.1. Scientific contribution of the manuscript

The scientific contribution is assessed according to the relevance and originality of the findings or proposals, the clarity with which they are presented, their contribution to existing knowledge, and their relevance to the disciplinary field. The article is expected to show explicitly what it adds to the state of the art and why its contribution deserves scientific attention.

4.2. Theoretical and conceptual construction

This dimension requires clarity in the formulation of the problem, precision in the use of concepts, and consistency in the use of categories and concepts. The text must demonstrate command of the theoretical references it uses and the ability to integrate them into the interpretation of the object of study. The mere accumulation of authors or citations is not sufficient; the work must put its concepts to use in relation to a well-constructed question or problem.

4.3. Methodological consistency

The methodology must be consistent with the problem, the objectives, and the type of results presented by the manuscript. This evaluation requires attention to the clarity and justification of the research design, as well as the adequate and rigorous description of procedures, sources, sample, and relevance of the analytical techniques. In research articles, the criterion lies in the coherence among question, method, and results; in review articles, the search strategy, selection criteria, and critical integration of the literature are assessed.

4.4. Quality of the analysis and discussion

The manuscript must develop its own reasoning, interpret the findings or arguments it presents with competence, and articulate a consistent scientific discussion. The discussion must place the text in dialogue with relevant literature and show what relationships, tensions, or confirmations emerge from comparison with other studies. The conclusions must derive directly from the analysis and clearly express the scope of the results.

4.5. Bibliographic references and sources

The bibliography must support the problem addressed, accompany the discussion, and reflect sufficient knowledge of the field. This dimension requires that it be relevant, sufficient, and up to date in relation to the topic addressed, and that it be effectively integrated into the development of the manuscript, with analytical consistency in the use of citations and references.

4.6. Expository clarity and argumentative coherence

A good manuscript organizes its sections logically, maintains the internal unity of the text, develops a clear argument, expresses its ideas with precision, and uses scientific terminology appropriately. The evaluation must consider the articulation among title, abstract, keywords, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions. It must also identify writing problems that hinder comprehension or weaken the argumentative force of the manuscript, although under no circumstances should this be understood as asking peer reviewers to spend their time on copyediting.

4.7. Ethical considerations

This review includes the appropriate and responsible use of sources, compliance with ethical principles in work involving persons, communities, or sensitive data, and the detection of serious biases that compromise the validity of the manuscript.

4.8. Drafting the review report and recommendation scale

The review report must be clear, well-argued, and useful; it should begin with an overall assessment of the manuscript and then develop its strengths, weaknesses, and aspects requiring improvement. It should distinguish between substantive comments, which refer to problems of theoretical construction, methodology, analysis, discussion, or conclusions; and formal comments, which concern organization, clarity, or textual adjustments. The report must explain precisely why the manuscript deserves a particular editorial recommendation and place it on the corresponding recommendation scale:

 

 

The review process at the journal Ciencia e Ingeniería assesses academic quality and provides the Editorial Board with a well-founded judgment on the relevance and quality of the manuscript. The Manuscript Review Form designed for this purpose establishes standardized criteria to ensure a rigorous and objective assessment process grounded in scientific and methodological standards.

The review report must be based on a critical and systematic reading of the text, identifying its strengths, limitations, and aspects that require adjustment or reformulation. The following criteria guide the reviewers who support the journal by providing their expert assessment and advice.

Scientific Contribution of the Manuscript

The scientific contribution is assessed according to the relevance and originality of the findings or proposals, the clarity with which they are presented, their contribution to existing knowledge, and their relevance to the disciplinary field. The article is expected to state explicitly what it adds to the state of the art and why its contribution deserves academic attention.

Theoretical and Conceptual Construction

This dimension requires clarity in the formulation of the research problem, precision in the use of concepts, and consistency in the use of categories and conceptual frameworks. The text must demonstrate command of the theoretical references it employs and the ability to integrate them into the interpretation of the object of study. A mere accumulation of authors or citations is insufficient; the manuscript must put its concepts to work in relation to a well-constructed question or problem.

Methodological Consistency

The methodology must be aligned with the problem, the objectives, and the type of results presented in the manuscript. This criterion requires attention to the clarity and justification of the research design, as well as to the adequate and rigorous description of procedures, sources, sample, and the appropriateness of the analytical techniques used. In research articles, the criterion lies in the coherence between the research question, method, and results; in review articles, the search strategy, selection criteria, and critical integration of the literature are assessed.

Quality of the Analysis and Discussion

The manuscript must develop its own line of reasoning, interpret the findings or arguments it presents with scholarly rigor, and articulate a consistent academic discussion. The discussion must place the text in dialogue with relevant literature and show what relationships, tensions, or confirmations emerge from comparison with other studies. The conclusions must derive directly from the analysis and clearly express the scope of the results.

Bibliographic References and Sources

The bibliography must support the problem addressed, sustain the discussion, and reflect sufficient knowledge of the field. This dimension requires that the references be relevant, sufficient, and up to date in relation to the topic under study, and that they be effectively integrated into the development of the manuscript, with analytical consistency in the use of citations and references.

Clarity of Expression and Argumentative Coherence

A strong manuscript organizes its sections logically, maintains the internal unity of the text, develops a clear argument, presents its ideas with precision, and uses scientific terminology appropriately. The review must consider the articulation between the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions. It must also identify writing problems that hinder comprehension or weaken the manuscript’s argumentative force. This should not be understood, however, as a request for reviewers to spend their time performing copyediting or stylistic corrections.

Ethical Considerations

This review includes the appropriate and responsible use of sources, compliance with ethical principles in work involving people, communities, or sensitive data, and the identification of serious biases that may compromise the validity of the manuscript.

Writing the Review Report and Recommendation Scale

The review report must be clear, well-argued, and useful. It should begin with a general assessment of the manuscript and then address its strengths, weaknesses, and aspects requiring improvement. Reviewers should distinguish between substantive observations, which concern problems related to theoretical construction, methodology, analysis, discussion, or conclusions, and formal observations, which refer to aspects of organization, clarity, or textual adjustments.

The report must explain precisely why the manuscript deserves a particular editorial recommendation and place it within the corresponding recommendation scale:

• accept without changes;

• accept with minor revisions;

• reevaluate after major revisions;

• reject.

To access the form that will be used in your review, go to the Submissions submenu and select “Manuscript Review Form”, or download it directly using the following link, which will open a Google Drive document: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eHHwE3TyAzYOvgaTQlm5y554itPs68oF/view?usp=drive_link