Evaluation by scientific peers
Each manuscript is analyzed by the Editor-in-Chief, who decides if it is relevant and pertinent to the Journal. A document that is submitted and has not yet been evaluated by academic peers is called a manuscript.
Scientific research, reflection and review manuscripts will be evaluated by two academic peers; These referees are selected by the Editor-in-Chief, among experts on the topic of each manuscript.
The case reports can be evaluated by the members of the Editorial Committee and external evaluators will not necessarily be required. The relevance of external evaluation in a given case report is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Committee. The review process by scientific peers is anonymous and double-blind; Neither the reviewers know the names of the authors nor do the authors know who accepts or rejects their manuscript, in order to guarantee objectivity in the evaluation. The Journal may ask the author to suggest the name of reviewers, with the Editor-in-Chief being responsible for choosing the peers, and may delegate to the members of the Editorial Committee when required.
The peer reviewer is contacted by email and/or telephone; The summary is sent to you and you must respond to accept or reject the review within 72 hours. After this deadline, if no response is obtained, you will be contacted again; if acceptance is not received, a new reviewer will be assigned.
Peers issue the evaluation in terms of publishing, publishing with modifications or not publishing. They can suggest corrections if they deem so, which are consolidated and reported to the authors; If necessary, the article is sent again to the peer reviewers to corroborate the requested adjustments. (Research article evaluation format, Review article evaluation format, Reflection article evaluation format, Case report evaluation format, Make the diagnosis evaluation format).
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 respective evaluations, which can help them improve the quality of their work.
If there are conflicting opinions among the referees regarding the evaluation, it can be taken to a third party and/or to discussion in the editorial committee.
Once it is accepted for publication, it is sent for style correction, a version that must be approved by the author, it is subsequently diagrammed and the PDF version passes for final approval by the author. If any correction is required, the magazine must be informed within the next three days.
After publication, the final version in PDF format will be available for the author to disseminate on academic social networks, if he so considers. Authors are encouraged to disseminate their articles on their social networks and in academic media.
PEER EVALUATION CRITERIA
- Originality, methodological and scientific quality: It is verified that it is original and the design, methods, procedures and statistical tests are appropriate; rigorous results, with sufficient information pertinent to the study objectives; correct interpretation of the results, as a basis for the conclusions.
- Ethics: Adherence to ethical standards, according to the Journal's guidelines, which includes certifying that the authors have informed consent and informed assent. Approval by the Ethics Committee, in research work. Declaration of conflicts of interest.
- Sources: The bibliographic review is relevant and reliable, respects good publication practices and the anti-fraud policy. The bibliography is comprehensive, current and sufficient. Follow the Vancouver style. Includes references from Colombian authors.
For review articles, no more than 70 references. It is recommended that at least 70% be original articles, and 10% must be from the last 5 years and at least one Colombian reference.
If there is no Colombian literature, the author must support it.The DOI (Digital Object Identifier) must be added to the references, in order to enable readers to identify and directly access them.
4. Appropriate and illustrative images, tables and graphs. They must be original or with permission from the author for reproduction. In the format and image quality defined by the Magazine.
The evaluator, when receiving the summary, must indicate whether or not he or she has conflicts of interest that prevent him or her from carrying out the evaluation. Once your evaluation is complete, send the completed form and the academic update form. The period for evaluation is 30 calendar days. The evaluator must refuse to act when he or she has any personal, professional or commercial relationship with the authors when they have worked together, when they are working on a similar topic.
The peer evaluators are selected based on knowledge of the topic, if they have previously evaluated well and on time, if they have no conflict of interest and if they have not been a co-author of the evaluated person.
The evaluation should allow the quality of the articles to be improved. Be objective and constructive in your criticism, detect plagiarism or self-plagiarism and submit the evaluation on time, and communicate with the editor in case of any delay.
As a form of recognition to the evaluators, the list of their names will be published biannually and the annual certificate of this work will be delivered.
