Guidelines for Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to the Revista Colombiana de Tecnologías de Avanzada (RCTA) are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers under a double-blind model. Their comments are essential to ensure scientific quality and to support editorial decisions.

Reviewer Selection

The following criteria are considered when selecting suitable reviewers:

  • Appropriate experience to evaluate the manuscript.
  • Adequate academic training (ideally a doctoral degree).
  • Specialization in the corresponding subject area.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest before starting the review.
  • Promptly decline the invitation if unavailable and suggest alternative reviewers.
  • Submit the review within the established deadline.
  • Evaluate the manuscript objectively and write a clear, detailed report.
  • Report any suspicion of inappropriate conduct to the editors.
  • Maintain absolute confidentiality of the received manuscript.

To ensure an efficient editorial process, we ask reviewers to read the following guidelines carefully.

The journal strictly follows the principles of COPE. It is recommended to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers .

Timeliness of Response

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

  • Accept or decline the invitation quickly, based on the title and abstract.
  • Submit the review within the agreed deadline or notify if an extension is needed.
  • Suggest alternative reviewers if they cannot perform the evaluation.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest (personal, financial, academic, professional, political, or religious) before starting the review.

Confidentiality

The assigned manuscript must be kept strictly confidential. It may not be shared, cited, or used before its official publication.

Reviewers must prepare their own reports. If they wish to involve another person in the review, they must request prior permission from the editorial office.

Suspected Misconduct

Any indication of plagiarism, duplicate publication or other malpractice should be reported immediately to the journal.

Rigorous Evaluation for Reviewers

Reviewers must complete a form that evaluates the following key aspects:

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

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive comments that help improve the quality of the manuscript.