Review process and arbitration system

Every article is carefully examined by external experts through a double-blind peer review, in an effort to carry out an objective and impartial evaluation. The identities of both authors and referees are concealed from each other. Referees receive an invitation containing the article’s abstract, with no mention of the authors’ names, institutions or affiliations, to avoid any bias. Once the referees agree to review the manuscript, they proceed to examine it and submit a report including possible changes, editorial suggestions and a recommendation concerning the article’s suitability for publication.

Submitted works follow the evaluation process described below:

1. Submitted works are reviewed by the Editorial Committee, who will verify that they meet the criteria of clarity, relevance and importance. During this stage, the Editorial Committee determines whether the article complies with the thematic lines of the journal and the editorial guidelines. Likewise, the document is analyzed using the Turnitin tool to detect plagiarism and similarities with published works, in order to ensure that the contributions are unpublished and the references are properly quoted. If the work is rejected during this stage, authors will be notified within 15 working days after its reception.
2. Works that meet the criteria of the first stage will be sent to two referees who are experts in the subject area and will be responsible for evaluating them. During this stage, referees are expected to submit their reports within a period of three months (this period may be extended if one report is positive and the other one is negative, as further detailed).

• If both reports are positive, the Editorial Committee will be directly informed of the results.
• If one of the reports is negative, the manuscript will be sent to a third referee, who will decide whether to accept or reject it.
• Requests for revisions will be sent to the authors, who must submit the corrected version within two weeks:

• Revised versions that required minor changes (that do not affect content or structure significantly) will be sent directly to the Editorial Committee.
• Revised versions that required major changes (that affect content or structure) will be sent back to the referee who requested the revision in order to issue their final report.

• If both reports are negative, the proposal will be rejected.

3. The Editorial Committee will decide whether to accept or reject the manuscripts based on the recommendations issued by the academic peers, and will notify the authors of the final outcome. The Editorial Committee will ensure that the resolutions made by the referees are respected, and will not change or revoke them unless serious issues are proven.

Additionally, the Editorial Committee carries out a permanent evaluation to ensure the quality of the journal. This includes disclosing the following information:

• The academic peer review system.
• The publication criteria to guide authors on the submission of articles.
• The authorship criteria.
• The articles review criteria in order for referees to make an unbiased evaluation.

It must be noted that Ciencia Digital@UAQRO guarantees the anonymity of both referees and authors, in order to ensure impartiality and protect the identities of those who participate in the publication. As part of this transparency effort, referees must disclose any conflicts of interest and are asked to sign a request for confidentiality.

Similarities and plagiarism detection strategy

Plagiarism, duplicated or redundant publications, as well as fabrication or manipulation of information, are serious breaches of ethics. The Editorial Committee of Digital Ciencia@UAQRO pledges to ensure that such practices will be detected and addressed as soon as the works are submitted.

All articles submitted for evaluation are analyzed using the Turnitin tool to calculate the percentage of matched text, which is later reviewed by the Editorial Committee or the editor. If plagiarism, duplicated or redundant publications (i.e., the total or partial copy of a work previously published by the same author, or its modification to make it look different) are detected, as well as if any information has been forged or manipulated, the article will be rejected. Likewise, if the similarity percentage is higher than 25%, the article will be rejected. It must be noted that the submission of a proposal does not guarantee its acceptance and publication.