Reviewer guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to the journal @Limentech Ciencia y Tecnología Alimentaria are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers under a double-blind review model. Their comments are essential to ensure scientific quality and to support editorial decision-making.

Selection of Reviewers

The following criteria are considered when selecting suitable reviewers:

  • Relevant expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
  • Appropriate academic qualifications (preferably a doctoral degree).
  • Specialization in the corresponding subject area.
  • No conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest before starting the review.
  • Decline the invitation promptly if unavailable and suggest alternative reviewers.
  • Submit the review within the established deadline.
  • Evaluate the manuscript objectively and prepare a clear and detailed report.
  • Report any suspected misconduct to the editors.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript received.

To ensure an efficient editorial process, reviewers are requested to carefully read the following guidelines.

The journal strictly follows the principles of COPE. Reviewers are encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Timeliness of Response

Timely communication is essential for a fair and consistent review process. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept or decline the invitation promptly, based on the title and abstract.
  • Submit the review within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor if an extension is required.
  • Suggest alternative reviewers if they are unable to conduct the evaluation.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest (personal, financial, academic, professional, political, or religious) prior to initiating the review.

Confidentiality

The assigned manuscript must be treated as strictly confidential. It may not be shared, cited, or used prior to publication.

Reviewers must prepare their own reports. If they wish to involve another individual, prior authorization must be obtained.

Suspected Misconduct

Any indication of plagiarism, duplication, or unethical practice must be reported immediately to the journal.

Rigorous Evaluation for Reviewers

Reviewers are required to complete a form assessing the following key aspects:

  1. Authenticity and Originality: Original contribution and absence of plagiarism.
  2. Relevance and Impact: Value for the field and the journal’s audience.
  3. Scientific Rigor: Methodological quality and robustness of conclusions.
  4. Research Ethics: Compliance with ethical standards.
  5. Language Quality: Clear writing and freedom from errors.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive comments that contribute to improving the quality of the manuscript.