Review procedure

The editorial process is divided into three stages: document submission, peer review, and professional editing.

1. Initial Review

Upon receipt of the manuscript, the Editorial Committee verifies its compliance with the Author Guidelines of the Journal. Submissions may be rejected during this initial evaluation for several reasons, including lack of thematic alignment with the areas covered by the Journal, absence of originality (verified through Turnitin), failure to comply with preparation and submission guidelines, as well as limited relevance or scope of the research. Manuscripts that meet these criteria proceed to the peer review stage.

Ethics. The Journal @Limentech Ciencia y Tecnología Alimentaria adheres to the recommendations and core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and, for this purpose, includes a set of ethical considerations within its policies. Once a manuscript is deemed viable after the editorial review, the peer review process begins.

2. Peer Review

This process follows a “double-blind” model, preserving the anonymity of both authors and reviewers to ensure impartiality. Manuscripts accepted for peer review are sent to at least two external reviewers with academic and research expertise in the relevant field. In cases of negative evaluations or lack of response after fifteen days, a third reviewer is appointed. Possible decisions include: Accepted, Accepted with minor revisions, Revision and resubmission, or Rejected. The average review time is up to six months, although it may be shorter depending on the timeliness of the reviewers’ responses.

Manuscript submission to reviewers. The editorial assistant sends the manuscripts to the reviewers along with the corresponding evaluation form, establishing a maximum deadline for the return of their reports.

Results. Once the two evaluation reports are received, the following outcomes may occur:

  • Accepted without revisions. Both reviewers approve the manuscript for publication without changes. In this case, the manuscript is submitted to the editorial team for final approval.
  • Accepted subject to revisions. The reviewers’ reports are positive, but one or both suggest revisions. In this case, the manuscript is returned to the corresponding author along with the reviewers’ recommendations for revision and correction.
  • Both reviewers issue negative evaluations regarding publication. In this case, the editorial assistant informs the corresponding author that the manuscript has been rejected and provides the reviewers’ reports.
  • Reviewer disagreement. One reviewer recommends publication while the other rejects it. In this case, the editorial team appoints a third reviewer, whose decision is final.

Acceptance. Manuscripts that have been accepted by the reviewers and revised by the authors are considered by the Editorial Committee for publication. This decision is communicated to the corresponding author.

Double-blind system. All manuscripts are evaluated anonymously by a minimum of two reviewers under the “double-blind” review process. This mechanism guarantees the anonymity of both authors and reviewers, who have no direct contact with each other and communicate only through the editor. Any controversies arising during the evaluation process are resolved by the Editorial Committee.

3. Editorial Decision

Upon receiving the reviewers’ reports, the Editor and the Editorial Committee communicate the editorial decision to the corresponding author, supported by reasoned arguments. If the manuscript is accepted with revisions, the Editor returns it with the reviewers’ recommendations, which must be addressed and resubmitted to the Editorial Committee within a maximum period of 15 days, together with a response letter addressing each reviewer’s comments.

Final Review and Publication. Once a manuscript is approved for publication, the processes of copyediting, layout, and publication on the editorial management platform begin. This stage may take up to one month. It should be noted that, due to the evaluation procedures, immediate publication of manuscripts cannot be guaranteed.

Authors’ responsibility. Authors must actively participate in the editing process whenever requested by the Editor. Failure to respond in a timely manner to editorial queries or required revisions may result in delays in publication or, ultimately, in the decision to withdraw the manuscript from publication.

To facilitate this process, authors are requested to write with the highest level of rigor, ensuring correct spelling, using concise and coherent paragraphs, and applying punctuation appropriately, in addition to complying with the required editorial norms and conventions. The Editorial Committee reserves the right to modify the title of submissions and to make any editorial changes deemed necessary to ensure that texts are published in their clearest, most coherent, and most readable version.