Indications for external reviewers

The Board of External Reviewers of 593 Digital Publisher CEIT is an independent collegiate body whose purpose is to guarantee the excellence of this scientific publication, due to the blind evaluation based exclusively on the quality of the contents manuscripts and carried out by experts of recognized prestige. International on the matter is the best guarantee and, without a doubt, the best guarantee for the advancement of science and to preserve in this header an original and valuable scientific production.

To this end, the Board of External Reviewers is made up of various international academics and scientists who are specialists in the issues addressed by the journal, essential for selecting the articles with the most significant impact and interest for the international scientific community. This, in turn, allows all the papers selected for publication in 593 Digital Publisher CEIT to have an academic endorsement and objective reports on the originals.

Of course, all reviews in 593 Digital Publisher CEIT employ the internationally standardized "double-blind" peer review system that guarantees the anonymity of manuscripts and reviewers.

1. Criteria for acceptance/rejection of manuscript evaluation

The 593 Digital Publisher CEIT editorial team selects from the list of reviewers of the Board of Reviewers those who are the most qualified about the manuscript. Although the publication requests the maximum collaboration of the reviewers to expedite the evaluations and reports on each original, the acceptance of the review must be linked to:

Expertise: Acceptance necessarily implies the possession of skills in the specific subject of the article to be evaluated.

Availability: Reviewing an original takes time and requires careful thought on many aspects.

Conflict of interests: In case of identification of the authorship of the manuscript (despite its anonymity), excessive academic or family closeness to its authors, belonging to the same University, Department, Research Group, Thematic Network, Research Projects, publications joint with the authors or any other type of connection or conflict / professional closeness; the Reviewer must decline the editor's invitation for review.

Confidentiality commitment. The reception of a manuscript for its evaluation requires the Reviewer an express obligation of confidentiality. It cannot, during the whole process, be disclosed to a third party.

If the Reviewer cannot carry out the activity for some of these or other justifiable reasons, he must notify the editor by the same means that he received the invitation, specifying the reasons for rejection.

2. General criteria for evaluating manuscripts

To download the template for the evaluation of theoretical manuscripts, download it here

To download the template in the assessment of empirical manuscripts, download it here

1. a) Topic

The theme raised in the original and is valuable and relevant to the scientific community must be limited and specialized in time and space, without reaching excessive localism.

1. b) Drafting

The critical appraisal in the review report must be written objectively, providing content, citations, or references of interest to support the judgment.

1. c) Originality

As a fundamental quality criterion, an article must be original, unpublished, and suitable. In this regard, reviewers must answer these three questions in the assessment:

Is the article novel and interesting enough to justify its publication?

Does it contribute something to the canon of knowledge?

Is the research question relevant?

A quick literature search using repositories such as Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Google Scholar to see if the research has been covered previously can be helpful.

1. d) Structure

Manuscripts sent to 593 Digital Publisher CEIT must follow the IMRyD structure, except those that are reviews of literature or specific studies. In this sense, the originals must contain a summary, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.

The title, abstract, and keywords must accurately describe the content of the article.

The literature review should summarize the most recent and appropriate research for the work presented. It will be especially valued with suitability criteria and that the references are of high impact - especially in WoS, Scopus, Scielo, etc. It should also include the general explanation of the study, its central objective, and the methodological design followed.

In the case of investigations, in the materials and methods, the author must specify how the data are collected, the process, and the instruments used to answer the hypotheses, the validation system, and all the information necessary to replicate the study.

The results should clearly specify the findings in a logical sequence. It is essential to check if the tables or tables presented are necessary or, if not, redundant with the content of the text.

In the discussion, the data obtained should be interpreted considering the literature review. Authors should include here if their article supports or contradicts previous theories. The conclusions will summarize the advances that the research raises in ​​scientific knowledge, future lines of research, and the main difficulties or limitations for carrying out the research.

Language: It will be positively valued if the language used facilitates reading and favors the clarity, simplicity, precision, and transparency of scientific terminology. The Reviewer should not proceed to correction, either in Spanish or English, but will inform the Editors of these grammatical or spelling errors.

Finally, a thorough review of the references is required in case any work had been omitted. The references must be precise, citing in the logic of the subject to be studied, their main works, as well as the documents that most resemble the work itself as well as the latest research in the area.

3. Relevant dimensions of valuation

593 Digital Publisher CEIT uses an evaluation matrix for each original that meets the editorial criteria and compliance with the publication regulations. In this sense, the reviewers must attend to the quantitative-qualitative assessment of each of the aspects proposed in this matrix with criteria of objectivity, reasoning, logic, and expertise.

In the case of a literature review or another type of study (reports, proposals, experiences, among others), the Editorial Board will send the reviewers a different matrix, understanding the characteristics of the structure of this type of originals:

4. Ethical issues

Plagiarism: Although the journal uses plagiarism detection systems, if the Reviewer suspects that an original is a substantial copy of another work, he or she must immediately inform the Editors, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.

Fraud: If there is a real or remote suspicion that the results in an article are false or fraudulent, it is necessary to report them to the editors.

5. Evaluation of the originals

Once the quantitative-qualitative evaluation of the manuscript under review has been carried out, the Reviewer may make recommendations to improve the quality of the original. However, the manuscript will be graded in three ways:

Rejection due to deficiencies detected, justified, and reasoned with a qualitative and quantitative assessment. The report must be longer if it gets less than 69 of the 115 possible points.

Acceptance without review.

Conditional acceptance and, therefore, with revision (major or minor). In the latter case, it must be clearly identified which correction is necessary, listing the comments and even specifying paragraphs and pages in which they suggest modifications.