Peer review process

In order to guarantee a quality standard and also ensure a fair curricular validation for the authors of the works presented in Science Portal, these will be submitted to a specialized and anonymous arbitration process before their publication, known as peer review under double-blind.

The selection of the texts that will be submitted for review remains at the discretion of the Editorial Committee. You can reject those papers that do not meet the minimum publication requirements or suggest improvements to the authors so that they make a second submission of their proposal.

The opinion of the texts is carried out by the double-blind method under terms of confidentiality guaranteed internally by the Open Journal Systems infrastructure and the anonymity practices by the actors involved in the process. The reviewers or reviewers must be specialists in the research area of the work to be reviewed and are proposed by the Editorial Committee. In 95% of the cases, the reviewers are external to the Jubones Institute. The designated time for each reviewer is four weeks.

The referees are previously registered in the platform with the role of reviewers. Once they have accepted the review of a job, they can access it and the online opinion format depending on the type of job.

In the event that two arbitrators present results that differ from each other, the intervention of a third arbitrator will be requested. The latter, without knowing the decisive nature of his opinion, will decide whether the article will be published or not.

An article will be considered accepted once the Editorial Committee approves the second version of the article that the author makes based on the suggestions of the evaluators, who have previously issued a positive opinion.

Rejected contributions may be proposed by the authors for publication in subsequent issues with the pertinent corrections or improvements. Said collaborations will be submitted to regular opinion with different arbitrators.

The Editorial Committee will send for evaluation one work per author at a time.

In any case, the Editorial Committee is solely responsible for the final acceptance or rejection of the proposed articles. The review process and its particularities are detailed below. Additionally, said information is complemented with that existing in the Ethics section of the publication. Any missing or incomplete information, let the reader know that the journal takes COPE's guidelines for peer review as a reference.

 

Arbitration Process and Allotted Times

Review system.

The journal Science Portal carries out a rigorous peer review process using the "double blind" peer review method.

Review deadlines.

Initial notification. When authors submit an original for review, they will receive an email to their contact address within a maximum period of 72 hours.

I move on to the review process. The Science Portal must notify the authors of the inclusion of their papers under review within 30 days, or on the contrary, their return.

Review of the original. The commitment of Science Portal is to communicate to the authors the result of the evaluation of their articles within a maximum period of 3 months. Trying to ensure that said period is shorter whenever possible depending on the number of originals under review at that time.

General review criteria.

For the article to go through the review process, it is initially evaluated by the editorial team of the journal:

Adaptation to the theme and scope of the magazine.
Interest and topicality of the proposal.
Complete and rigorous adaptation to the publication standards of the journal in all its extremes

In order for the article to be accepted for publication, regardless of the specific considerations made by the reviewers on the originals received, the articles must comply with the following general considerations. When the originals do not meet these requirements they will be rejected:

Offer a valuable and significant result to Multidisciplinary knowledge. In this sense, submissions that constitute simple theoretical reviews or framework articles on the state of the art that do not provide new knowledge through original theoretical approaches should be refrained. This type of article is not of interest to Science Portal.
Fully respect the publication rules of the section to which they are referred.
Completely abide by the article structure required in the section to which it refers, both in the form and in the content and nature required by said model of scientific presentation.

Scrupulously comply with all the ethical requirements for scientific publication subscribed to by the journal Science Portal.

Phases of the blind peer review process of an article

Peer review helps the editor-in-chief and editorial board make editorial decisions, while editorial communications with the author can also help the author improve the article.
Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide expedited review must notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process immediately.
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shown or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviews must be conducted objectively. There will be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers must express their points of view clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that has been previously reported elsewhere must be accompanied by the appropriate citation. A reviewer should also bring to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief any substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article of which he or she is personally aware.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.
Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest as a result of competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the articles.

Considerations for evaluators

Once you have reviewed the article for evaluation, keep the following points in mind:

Confidentiality

He acts as a representative of Scientific Publications and all files sent to him are extremely confidential. As a reviewer, you may not share any documents and/or information without proper authorization from the Editorial Team. If you want to add a peer to the review process, you'll first need to speak with an editorial assistant. Reviewers should also use extreme caution with research ideas and should not under any circumstances use the data and/or topics in their own personal manuscripts.

Timely review

A good and productive review process takes a lot of time. However, as the authors are eagerly awaiting the results of the evaluation, we ask our reviewers to provide feedback within 2-3 weeks. If you think the article requires extensive reading, please inform the Editorial Office within the first week.

Ethics

As a reviewer, you should also consider whether the article has any ethical issues. If you feel that the article in whole or in part has incorrectly copied some existing research, please let the editors know. You should also check if the article is based on accuracy rather than personal statements and goals. See more in Ethical Policy.

Structure

The structure and content are the essential part of a manuscript. Reviewers should focus primarily on this part and the bulk of the review report should focus on the quality of the research.

Reviewers should carefully evaluate the following aspects of a manuscript:

Originality and scope

Is the research topic a current and innovative idea? Is there any discussion on this topic and is it related to the scope of the journal? Has there been any previous research in this area? If so, is further research necessary? Would the magazine or any reader benefit from this article? Is there significant interest in this area of research?

Title

Does the title adequately explain the purpose and objective of the article? Is it too long (readers often prefer clear, concise titles)?

Resume

Does the abstract contain an appropriate abstract for the article? Is the language used in the abstract easy to read and understand? Are there suggestions for improvement?

Introduction

Do the authors provide adequate background on the topic and purpose of this article? Does this section describe what the authors hoped to achieve? The introduction should provide a detailed outline of the article, including the proposed experiment, the research method, and the results.

Materials and methods

Is there detailed information about the experiment and the research? Do the authors address the issue with the appropriate method? Do they provide sufficient reasoning for their approach? Are the data and sample design clearly described? Can readers use the information provided to replicate the research? Are all measures, equipment and materials adequately described?

Results

Are the results presented clearly?
Do the authors provide accurate research results?
Is there sufficient evidence to each result?

Conclution

Are there any flaws in the research results and methodology? Does the research provide enough data for the authors to reach their conclusions? Have the authors highlighted its future implications and use of their research? Is there room for further improvement? Did the authors outline the objective of their conclusions?

Tables and Figures

Are all tables and figures used in the manuscript original and of high quality? Do they complement the investigation? Are they mentioned correctly in the text?

Grammar

Is the English used in the manuscript easy to understand and is it used correctly?
Should authors use an English language service to allow readers an easier understanding of their research?
Highlight any minor grammar or punctuation issues that the authors need to resolve.

Formatting

The format of the article is an important part of the evaluation process, but reviewers should not focus their decision on this. If a manuscript has been accepted, the Science Portal team reformats it according to our template. Just keep in mind the following points:

Does the article follow the journal format available online in the Instructions for Authors?

Do all paragraphs, tables, and figures have proper titles?

Final recommendation

Once you have evaluated the manuscript in detail, you can submit your review report to the editorial team.

Review decision

When issuing a review decision, you must select any of the following three options:

Accept as Current: The manuscript is eligible for publication in its current state and should be considered for publication immediately. You must provide adequate reasoning for your decision.
Accept with revisions: The manuscript provides sound reasoning, focuses on an important issue, and should be considered for publication. There are some issues that authors need to address. The manuscript must be revised to meet the journal's requirements.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication and should not be considered for publication in its current state. You must provide an adequate reason for your decision to allow the authors to improve their research.

Review format

Once you have made your final decision on the article, prepare your comments according to the Journal Evaluation Report.

Impressions and Comments: This section should describe your views on the manuscript, which may include responses to the above questions. You can provide a reasoning for your decision.
Suggestions: The suggestions section is the key part of the evaluation form. You should clearly describe any suggestions you have for authors to prepare your manuscript for publication. Be sure to add your recommendations and reviews only in this section and not mix anywhere else. You can provide authors with a checklist to follow to modify their manuscript.

After checking

Once you have successfully reviewed the manuscript, you can submit your review through our Online Editorial System.

If you do not have access to the Editorial System, you can send it to the Editorial Assistant by email to update it in the system.

If you have requested article revisions, the authors will review your manuscript based on your comments and send you the revised version for a second round of review. You can then check if the authors have adequately addressed all your concerns. You can repeat this process as long as all issues have been fixed and the article is eligible for publication.

Policy on Special Issues and Guest Editors

The Portal de la Ciencia Journal publishes thematic special issues, which are governed strictly by the same editorial and ethical principles and peer-review procedures applied to regular issues. The Editor-in-Chief has ultimate responsibility for all content and oversees and guarantees the scientific quality of each publication, including special issues. The appointment of guest editors is subject to a prior evaluation and approval process by the editorial committee. Their work will be continuously monitored by the Editor-in-Chief or by members of the editorial board delegated for this purpose, ensuring compliance with the journal's established standards. All manuscripts submitted for special issues will undergo external peer review according to the current review model and must be explicitly identified as part of a thematic issue. In cases where a guest editor participates as an author, their manuscript will be processed through an independent review process to safeguard transparency and avoid any conflict of interest. Additionally, guest editors' authorship may not exceed 25% of the total articles included in the special issue.