Reviewer Guidelines

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Every manuscript submitted to INGENIERIA Journal would be double-blinded peer-reviewed by at least two experts recommending its suitability or not for an eventual publication. The Editor-in-chief in association with the Editorial Board, based on the recommendations given by the reviewers and after double-checking compliance with the editorial policies of the journal, decides to publish the paper in a forth-coming issue of the Journal or to reject it. All manuscripts submitted to the journal must be original and unpublished.

 

STAGES OF THE REVIEW PROCESS

1.  Submission requirements review: Upon submission of a manuscript, a designated member of the editorial team would double-check if it complies with the formatting and presentation policies of the journal. If the manuscript does not meet these conditions, an email will be sent to the authors notifying the adjustments needed and asking to resubmit in a period shorter than two weeks. This preliminary review would be carried out within one to two weeks from the time the manuscript is submitted.

2. Editorial Board review: After preliminary validation, the Editorial Board would decide the pertinence and suitability of the submission according to the aims and scope of the Journal. Depending on this decision the manuscript would be sent to peer-review or would be rejected and authors would be notified. This Editorial Board review would be carried out within one to two weeks from the time the manuscript passed the submission requirements review.

3. Peer-review: At least two experts would be assigned to a submitted manuscript, according to their expertise and recognised experience in the field and subject of the manuscript. These experts would be ideally external to Universidad Distrital, hold a PhD degree or be a PhD candidate, and have published in the previous year a paper in a high quality scientific journal. Members of the Editorial Board and Associated Editorial Committee would be sporadically be assigned as reviewers if they express their willingness to. Peer-reviewers would be expected to sent their reviews within one to two months after been assigned.

4. Outcome of peer-review: Reviewers may recommend the following to the Editorial Board:

- ACCEPT: the manuscript is ready to be published.

- ACCEPT WITH MINOR CORRECTIONS: the manuscript requires minor adjustments in order to be accepted. Authors would be given two weeks to address the adjustments and then resubmit a new corrected version.

- ACCEPT WITH MAJOR CORRECTION: the manuscript requires major adjustments in order to be accepted. Authors would be given four weeks to address the adjustments and then resubmit a new corrected version. The Editor may ask the authors if they are willing to correct the paper, and if they are not, he may reject the manuscript at this point.

- REJECT: the manuscript is not suitable for publication according to the scientific quality standards of the Journal and therefore should be rejected.

The Editorial Board would take a consensual decision based on the recommendations of the reviewers or if necessary or contradictory, it would ask for another peer-review opinion. Many rounds of review may be carried out until a final ACCEPT consensual recommendation is achieved. At that point the Editor would notify the authors the final outcome of the process, and the paper would be passed to the final production stages (proofreading and layout).

It is necessary to carry out the evaluation process through the OJS system. We recommend consulting the Evaluaion format and Review Process