Article evaluation, Peer review

I. Each of the four processes (from 1st to 4th) will take approximately 2 weeks:

1st. When the article is received through this Platform or Contact Email, the formal review of the article begins, analyzing the relevance of the text with the topics of the journal; considering one or several valued characteristics, which determine its prioritization:

1.1. Considerable contributions to the academic community, preferably from experimental studies.

1.2. Articles in American English (they may be 6 to 8 pages, with less than 9 references).

1.3. References, with URL or DOI from DOAJ, Scielo, WoS, Scopus databases; articles from this journal in which at least one affiliation is from Postgraduate studies may be considered.

1.4. Written with APA regulations, 7th edition; between 6 to 12 pages in total, with less than 9 references from the last 5 years

1.5. Maximum 6 co-authors per article, except for multi-center studies.

1.6. Sent by the GESTIONES Platform, or send it to: ayudatesis@gmail.com; for the anonymity of the co-authors, use the first letters of the name; for example, for Abel Díaz Paz (ADP).

Then the start of the review process will be notified, with the following stage: Similarity evaluation.

2°. Similarity evaluation: The articles will be reviewed using software to evaluate the level of originality of the work, having a percentage less than 18% of similar elements, it will go to the Editorial Review (then to the Editorial Decision) or to the Peer Review; when the article has more than 18% similarity it will be Rejected.

3° Double-blind peer review: Articles submitted to GESTIONES are evaluated by anonymous referees, keeping the identity and anonymity of the author(s) confidential. The decisions of the members of the scientific editorial review and arbitration committee to accept or reject a document for publication prioritize the relevance, originality, clarity, and pertinence of the study in relation to the themes of the GESTIONES journal.
It is guaranteed that the article submitted for publication will be reserved and confidential while it is being evaluated; if it is rejected, the evaluators will not be able to use or publish it. Authors are notified of the acceptance or rejection of the article within two weeks. When the evaluators consider it appropriate, they will return the article to receive the modifications within a maximum period of two weeks (failing that, the process will be cancelled: rejected). The decisions of the Editorial Board and the results of the arbitration process are final. The review of the formal and content aspects of the article will be the exclusive responsibility of the author.

4. Editorial Decision: The evaluators send, through this Platform or Email, the technical evaluation of the article, suggesting the following actions to be carried out by the editor:

4.1. Accept submission: The article in its current state will be published in the same month.
4.2. Publishable with modifications (within a maximum time of 2 weeks): the article will be accepted, subject to overcoming the observations indicated in the evaluation.
4.3. Resubmit as a new submission (there is no time limit): it is suggested that the author consider making substantial changes to his/her article.
4.4. Not publishable: it is suggested not to publish the article. 4.5. If the decision of at least one of the reviewers is to “Resend for review”, the author is invited to make the respective changes within the established period of two weeks. If the manuscript is not submitted on the stipulated date, it will be rejected. Once the author resubmits the manuscript with the necessary corrections, these will be reviewed by the reviewers for the final verdict.

When the articles are accepted, the authors are notified to receive full names, email addresses and affiliations (for authors who work in the Graduate School, it is suggested to indicate this). The information will be used only in the article and will not be provided to third parties.

5th. Withdrawal of articles: If the author(s) decide to withdraw the manuscript at any of the review stages, they must request it by sending the aforementioned message to the Contact Email, with a copy for all co-authors involved in the article. accepts the ethical guidelines for publications of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)

II. Considerations of the Evaluators or reviewers of articles:

A. They make suggestions and recommendations on how to improve the article.

B. The reviewer's evaluation should be given on the substance and form of the work, taking into account: Importance of the subject, Originality, Degree to which the conclusions are supported by the data, Organization and clarity, Coherence of the arguments, Appropriate methods.

C. The presentation of Results and Discussions may involve Approximately 30% of the entire paper should visualize the statistical analysis, consistency and style of writing linked to the objectives and/or hypotheses. Discussions may include: contrast and comparison of results with other research.

D. Functions of the Evaluators or reviewers of articles:

D.1. Issue corrections whether written in the article draft, for the authors; or summary of commentary for the author, product of a careful examination and appreciation.
D.2. Estimate a qualitative judgment of the article reviewed: Very good, Good, Fair, To be improved.
D.3. Give its evaluation verdict, which will be reached for the 4th process (Editorial Decision, indicated above).