Peer review process

The articles received in the different calls for papers are submitted to an initial review by the editor and/or editorial committee who make a first selection and, if applicable, recommend the necessary adjustments to the authors so that the articles can continue with the process or are definitively returned if they are not within the scope of the subject matter or quality required by the journal.

The articles that pass the initial evaluation are submitted to a refereeing process carried out by professors and researchers of recognized trajectory and national and international reputation, who write their analysis in the respective formats that have been designed for such purpose.

This entire process is documented and archived for incorporation into the bibliographic base of MinCiencias.

The articles that pass the initial evaluation of the editorial committee will be submitted to an arbitration process under the double-blind review methodology in order to maintain confidentiality, avoiding the identity of the authors and reviewers to be known among them.

In each edition, the maximum number of peer reviewers internal to the Technological University of Pereira will be taken into account, so, in no case, this will exceed 20% of the total for each issue.

The entire process is documented in the formats established by the journal and archived in the journal's repository and partially shared in the Publindex Bibliographic Base of MinCiencias (Colombia).

The articles published in the journal are the sole responsibility of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the thinking of the editorial board or the university.

The articles received in the different calls for papers are subject to an initial review by the editor and/or editorial committee who make a first selection and, if applicable, recommend the necessary adjustments to the authors so that the articles can continue with the process or are definitively returned if they are not within the scope of the subject matter or quality required by the journal.

The articles that pass the initial evaluation are submitted to a refereeing process carried out by professors and researchers of recognized trajectory and reputation, who write their analysis in the respective formats that have been designed for such purpose.

 This entire process is documented and archived for its incorporation into the bibliographic base of MinCiencias.

 

- Evaluation process

The route of each article must be a clear and transparent process for the authors, the evaluators and the journal's committee.

In each call for papers the main author sends the article through one of the two channels, either the OJS in the established arrows, in the preliminary review (maximum seven days) the relevance and standards are examined and the acceptance for evaluation or non-acceptance is reported and the reason why it does not continue in the process.

If the article is accepted, it goes to a process of assigning evaluators (blind peer review) with a maximum time of one month to accept or reject the article, if it is not accepted, the article returns to its author with the evaluation and a list of details, if it is accepted, it is notified about the fact and recommendations or changes are sent if necessary with a maximum time of 15 days to organize the final structure of the material and go to the layout process, after the approval of this step, the issue is published through the main page of the journal - OJS.

From the date of publication, each article is assigned a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) to track visits, visibility and impact.

                                                                          Evaluation Format

 

1. Considerations about the article:

a) Are the summary, keywords and abstract satisfactory? ___

b) Is the analysis of the subject/problem relevant? ___

c) Are the bibliographical references appropriate? ___

d) Are the bibliographical references cited in the document? ___

e) Rate the following aspects: (1 is very bad and 10 is excellent)

I. Originality of the paper ___

II. Contribution to knowledge ___

III. Clarity of presentation ___

IV. Quality of the work ___

2. The overall evaluation of the article for publication purposes, you consider it:

Excellent ___

Outstanding ___

Well ___ 

Acceptable ___

Poor ___ 

3. Do you think the article should be published:

As printed ___

Once the suggested corrections have been made ___

It should not be published ___

Observations:

____________________________________________________