Peer review

To ensure the scientific accuracy, quality, and relevance of the articles, a rigorous double-blind peer review process is carried out. First, the editor-in-chief conducts an initial evaluation of the manuscript submitted by the authors to determine its suitability according to the journal’s criteria. If the article meets the Guidelines for Authors, it is sent to a minimum of two expert reviewers in the corresponding thematic area, who will examine the scientific value of the document and the usefulness of its publication to assess its scientific quality.

Once the reviewers' reports are received, the editor-in-chief analyzes their recommendations and makes a decision, which may include: rejection, acceptance on the condition that the author incorporates the reviewers' comments and recommendations, or final acceptance. In cases where significant discrepancies arise between reviewers, a third evaluator will be appointed to provide an additional opinion.

In the case of conditional acceptance, authors must make the requested modifications and submit a revised version of the manuscript along with a response letter, in which they explain in detail how each observation was addressed. If the corrections are substantial, the manuscript may undergo a new evaluation by the same reviewers to verify the relevance of the changes; otherwise, the manuscript will be rejected. On the other hand, if the manuscript meets the required standards after the final review, the editor-in-chief will send the formal acceptance notification to the author for editing, layout, and publication, subject to the author's consent.