Review Procedure

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

1. Initial Review

Upon receiving the manuscript, the Editorial Committee verifies its compliance with the Journal's Author Guidelines. Papers may be rejected in the initial evaluation for various reasons, such as lack of thematic alignment with the areas covered by the Journal, lack of originality (verified through Turnitin), failure to comply with preparation and presentation guidelines, as well as the relevance and scope of the research. Manuscripts meeting these criteria proceed to Peer Review.

Ethics. The Colombian Journal of Advanced Technologies (RCTA) adheres to the recommendations and core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and includes a series of ethical considerations within its policy. Finally, if a manuscript is deemed viable after editorial review, peer review will commence.

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 referees with academic and research expertise in the field. In case of negative evaluations or lack of response after fifteen days, a third reviewer is sought. Decisions may include: Accepted, Accepted with minor revisions, Revise and resubmit, or Rejected. The average review time is up to 6 months, although it may be shorter with timely responses from assigned reviewers.

Manuscript Submission. The editorial assistant will send the manuscripts to the peers, along with the respective evaluation form, agreeing on a maximum time for their feedback.

Results. Upon receiving both evaluations, the following scenarios may occur:

  • Approved without changes. Two peer reviewers approve the manuscript for publication without changes. In this case, the manuscript undergoes editorial review for final approval.
  • Approved subject to changes. Reviewers' feedback is positive, but one or both suggest changes. In this case, the manuscript is returned to the corresponding author along with recommendations for adjustments, for manuscript revision and correction.
  • Both reviewers' feedback is negative regarding the manuscript's publication. In this case, the editorial assistant will inform the corresponding author that the work has been rejected, attaching the reviewers' feedback.
  • Reviewer conflict. One of the selected reviewers approves the manuscript for publication while the other rejects it. In this case, the editorial team will appoint a third reviewer, whose decision will be final.

Approval. Manuscripts accepted by peer reviewers and corrected by authors will be considered by the Editorial Committee for publication. This decision will be communicated to the corresponding author.

Double-Blind System. Every manuscript will be anonymously evaluated by a minimum of two peers, under the "double-blind" process. This mechanism ensures anonymity for both authors and reviewers, who will have no contact with each other, only through the editor. Disputes arising in the evaluation process will be resolved by the Editorial Committee.

3. Editorial Decision

Upon receiving the evaluation results, the Editor and Editorial Committee communicate their editorial decision to the corresponding author with substantiated arguments. If accepted with revisions, the Editor returns the work with referees' recommendations, which must be implemented and submitted to the Editorial Committee within a maximum of 15 days, along with a letter addressed to each reviewer responding to their suggestions.

Final Review and Publication: Once approved for publication, the proofreading, formatting, and publication on the editorial management platform commence. This process may take up to a month. It is emphasized that due to the evaluation processes, immediate publication of works by authors cannot be guaranteed.

Authors' Responsibility. Authors must actively participate in the editing process as soon as requested by the editor. Failure of an author to respond to complete or resolve all editing queries may lead to delays in article publication or even the decision to discard its publication.

To facilitate this process, authors are asked to write with the utmost rigor, checking spelling, using short and homogeneous paragraphs, and appropriately using punctuation marks, in addition to following the requested editorial norms and conventions. The Editorial Committee reserves the right to modify the title of documents and make editorial changes as deemed necessary to ensure that the texts are published in their cleanest, most coherent, and readable version.