Peer Review
Definition of Peer Reviewer
For the Revista Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria, a peer reviewer is an active researcher, both nationally and internationally, with a postgraduate degree (master's or doctorate) in agricultural sciences or related fields. This reviewer should have a recognized track record in the area, significant research experience, and a relevant scientific output that enables them to critically assess manuscripts in their field of expertise.
Review Process
Manuscripts submitted to the journal first undergo a preliminary evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors, who are experts in various fields of knowledge. During this stage, the manuscript is checked for compliance with the basic quality and relevance requirements of the journal. If the manuscript passes this initial evaluation, three specialists in the relevant area are assigned to conduct a thorough review under the double-blind peer review system. This method ensures the confidentiality of both authors and reviewers, minimizing any potential bias.
The Editorial Committee reserves the right to submit articles for review and publish only those that meet the established quality and relevance criteria of the journal.
Role of the Peer Reviewer
The peer reviewer is responsible for ensuring that the manuscript meets the required scientific and ethical standards. This includes evaluating the methodological rigor, validity of the results, clarity and accuracy of the writing, and relevance of the research to the field of study. Additionally, the reviewer should identify areas for improvement and provide constructive recommendations. At least two of the three evaluations must be positive for the article to be published, even if corrections are needed.
Ethical Responsibilities
Reviewers should:
- Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process.
- Declare any conflicts of interest and decline the invitation if they cannot objectively evaluate the manuscript.
- Conduct a fair, technical, and constructive review, avoiding comments that fall outside the scope of the research.
- Inform the editor of any potential cases of plagiarism, data manipulation, or other ethical issues detected.
- Review sources and suggest changes if necessary.
- Adhere to the deadlines for the review or notify the editor if more time is needed.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must inform the editor of any conflict of interest that may affect their ability to conduct an impartial review. This includes personal, professional, or commercial relationships with the authors, or any ongoing project or research related to the manuscript's topic.
Review Process and Timeline
Once a manuscript complies with the journal's policies, reviewers are selected. The review process generally takes four to six weeks, including the time needed to select reviewers, confirm their availability, and complete the review. Reviewers have two weeks to conduct the evaluation. If they are unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editor to arrange a new date.
Suggestion of Reviewers
To expedite the process, authors must provide a list of five potential reviewers, national and/or international, who do not belong to the same institution as the authors of the manuscript. The list should include full institutional postal addresses and email addresses of the suggested reviewers.
The evaluation report must be clear and well-founded, ensuring that both the editor and the authors understand the suggestions and comments. The peer reviewer may be consulted again to clarify doubts or review modifications to the manuscript.
