Review Procedure
The editorial process is divided into three stages: submission of documents, peer review, and professional editing.
1. Initial Review
Upon receiving the manuscript, the Editorial Committee verifies its compliance with the Journal’s Guidelines for Authors. Papers may be rejected in the initial evaluation for several reasons, such as 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 the relevance and scope of the research. Manuscripts meeting these criteria proceed to Peer Review.
Ethics. The journal *Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria* adheres to the recommendations and core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For this purpose, the journal’s policy includes a series of ethical considerations. Finally, if a manuscript is deemed viable after editorial review, the peer evaluation process will begin.
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 appropriate academic and research qualifications in the field. In the event of negative evaluations or lack of response after fifteen days, a third reviewer is consulted. The possible review outcomes are: Accepted, Accepted with Minor Revisions, Revise and Resubmit, or Rejected. The average review time is up to six months, although it may be shorter with timely responses from assigned reviewers.
Submission to Reviewers. The editorial assistant will send the manuscripts to the reviewers, along with the corresponding evaluation form, agreeing on a maximum timeframe for submitting their review.
Outcomes. Once the two evaluations have been received, the following may occur:
- Approved without changes. Two reviewers approve the publication of the manuscript without changes. In this case, the manuscript is submitted to the editorial team for final approval.
- Approved subject to changes. The reviewers’ evaluations are positive, but one or both suggest modifications. In this case, the manuscript is returned to the corresponding author with the reviewers’ recommendations for revision and correction.
- Two reviewers issue negative evaluations regarding publication. In this case, the editorial assistant will inform the corresponding author that the paper has been rejected, attaching the reviewers’ comments.
- Reviewer conflict. One reviewer approves the publication while another rejects it. In this case, the editorial team will assign a third reviewer, whose decision will be final.
Approval. Manuscripts accepted by reviewers and corrected by the authors will be considered by the Editorial Committee for publication. The corresponding author will be informed of this decision.
Double-Blind System. All manuscripts are evaluated anonymously by at least two reviewers under the “double-blind” system. This mechanism guarantees anonymity for both authors and reviewers, who will never have direct contact with each other, only through the editor. Any disputes arising during the review process will be resolved by the Editorial Committee.
3. Editorial Decision
Upon receiving the review results, the Editor and Editorial Committee communicate their decision to the corresponding author with supporting arguments. If accepted with revisions, the Editor returns the work with the reviewers’ recommendations, which must be implemented and resubmitted to the Editorial Committee within a maximum of 15 days, along with a response letter addressing each reviewer’s suggestions.
Final Review and Publication: Once approved for publication, the copyediting, layout, and publication process begins on the editorial management platform. This process may take up to one month. It should be noted that, due to the review process, immediate publication cannot be guaranteed.
Authors’ Responsibility. Authors must actively participate in the editing process as soon as requested by the editor. Failure to respond to requests for clarifications or edits may result in publication delays or, in some cases, withdrawal of the article from publication.
To facilitate this process, authors are asked to write with the utmost rigor, ensuring correct spelling, using short and consistent paragraphs, and applying proper punctuation, while following the required editorial norms and conventions. The Editorial Committee reserves the right to modify document titles and make editorial adjustments deemed necessary to ensure that texts are published in their cleanest, most coherent, and readable form.
