Peer review

Peer review guidelines

Each manuscript is submitted to the editors, who decide whether it is relevant and pertinent to the Journal. A manuscript is a document that is submitted and has not yet been evaluated by academic peers. The peer review process is anonymous and double-blind.

Scientific research, reflection or review manuscripts will be evaluated by two external academic peers; these referees are selected by the editors from among experts in the subject of each manuscript.

Case reports may be evaluated by the editors and do not necessarily require external reviewers. The relevance of an external peer reviewer for a given case report is at the discretion of the editor.

The peer reviewer is contacted by e-mail; the abstract is sent to the peer reviewer and the peer reviewer must give an acceptance or rejection response within 72 hours. After this period, if no response is received, the peer reviewer will be contacted again and another 72-hour period will be granted; if no acceptance is received, a new reviewer will be assigned.

The evaluation is given in terms of publishing, publishing with modifications or not publishing, taking into account the scientific and methodological quality, interest and relevance of the topic. The evaluation is recorded in the respective format.
https://asocolderma.org.co/sites/default/files/formato_-_reporte_de_caso_0.docx
https://asocolderma.org.co/sites/default/files/formato_-_haga_usted_el_diagnostico_0.docx
https://asocolderma.org.co/sites/default/files/formato_-_articulo_de_revision_0.docx
https://asocolderma.org.co/sites/default/files/formato_-_articulo_de_reflexion_0.docx
https://asocolderma.org.co/files/formato-articulodeinvestigaciondocx

Peer reviewers decide whether it is appropriate for publication and may suggest corrections if they deem it necessary, which are transmitted to the authors. The article is sent again to the peer reviewers to corroborate if the requested adjustments were made according to relevance.

The result of the evaluation is communicated to the authors for the required modifications. Those that are rejected will be returned to the authors with the corresponding evaluations, which may help them to improve the quality of their work.

If there are conflicting opinions among the referees regarding the publication, it can be taken to a third party or discussed in the editorial committee.

In any case, the final decision on whether or not to approve the article is made by the Editorial Committee.

The statistics of our evaluation process for the last two years, from January 2022 to April 2024 are:

Days to first editorial decision: 124 days

Rejection rate: 46%.

Rejection rate before review: 36%.

Rejection rate after review: 10%.

 

Evaluation criteria

Originality, methodological and scientific quality: it is verified that it is original and that the design, methods, procedures and statistical tests are adequate; also that the results are rigorous, with sufficient information relevant to the objectives of the study, in addition to a correct interpretation of the results, as a basis for the conclusions.

Ethics: adherence to ethical standards, according to the Journal's guidelines (link to guidelines), which includes certifying that the authors have informed consent and approval by the ethics committee of the research work. Declaration of conflicts of interest.

Sources: the bibliographic review is pertinent and reliable, respects good publication practices and the anti-fraud policy. The bibliography is complete, current and sufficient, follows the Vancouver style and includes references of Colombian authors.

For review articles, at least 50 references should be included. Of these, 70% must be original articles, 10% must be from the last five years and at least one reference must be Colombian.

Appropriate and illustrative images, charts and graphs. They must be original or have the author's permission for reproduction, in the format and image quality defined by the Journal.

The evaluator, when receiving the abstract, should indicate whether or not he/she has conflicts of interest that prevent him/her from carrying out the evaluation. Once the evaluation is completed, the evaluator sends the completed form and the academic update form. The deadline for the evaluation is 20 calendar days, after which, if the evaluation has not been received, a reminder will be sent, extending the deadline for 10 more days. If no response is received within this period, the evaluator will be changed. The evaluator must refuse to act when he/she has any personal, professional or commercial relationship that may affect the judgment of the evaluation.

The evaluation should improve the quality of the articles. The evaluator should be objective and constructive in his/her criticism, detect plagiarism or self-plagiarism, deliver the evaluation on time and communicate with the editor in case of any delay.

As a form of recognition to the evaluators, a list of their names will be published biannually and they will receive an annual certificate for this work.