Peer review
Evaluation
Boletín Científico CIOH considers peer review to be a fundamental and indispensable component of the scientific publishing process. The journal's peer review policy is also guided by several recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), particularly those concerning timeliness, peer review by qualified experts, and integrity. These principles underpin the journal's editorial decision-making process regarding which manuscripts are selected for publication.
Furthermore, in order to ensure the greatest possible independence of external reviewers in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts, the journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, under which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the entire review process.
The journal's manuscript evaluation process consists of the following stages:
Editorial Review
All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial review. This review includes verification that the authors have properly provided all the documentation required to formalize the submission.
Subsequently, the manuscript is screened using plagiarism detection software. If concerns regarding originality or potentially improper use of previously published material are identified, the authors will be notified.
If no such concerns are found, the editors will determine whether the manuscript meets the quality standards required to proceed to full external peer review. At this stage, the editor evaluates the manuscript's structure, bibliography, conceptual and methodological aspects, and its alignment with the journal's scope or with the specific issue to which it has been submitted.
If the manuscript satisfies these requirements, it will be assigned to external reviewers. Otherwise, the authors will be informed that the manuscript has not been accepted for peer review or that revisions are required before the review process can continue.
Reviewer Invitation
The journal is responsible for identifying and inviting reviewers for each manuscript accepted for peer review, taking into account the reviewers' academic qualifications, research experience, expertise in the subject area of the manuscript, and relevant recent publications.
The time allowed for completing a review depends on the complexity of the manuscript and any specific circumstances that may arise during the review process. However, the journal recommends a review period of two (2) to four (4) weeks, which may be extended when necessary.
If a reviewer fails to submit the requested review report within the established timeframe, the editor may reassign the manuscript to another reviewer.
Evaluation Criteria
The journal uses a structured evaluation form available through its Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform to guide the peer review process. This form enables both quantitative and qualitative assessment of the manuscript.
The review includes formal aspects such as manuscript structure, language quality, and the appropriate use of figures and tables, as well as substantive aspects including the theoretical framework, methodology, depth of analysis, relevance and currency of the references, and the significance of the results or conclusions.
The evaluation of each manuscript also depends on its manuscript type, whether it is an original research article, a literature review, a reflection article, a current issues analysis, or any other manuscript category defined by the journal.
Evaluation Outcomes
The outcome of the peer review process may fall into one of the following four categories:
- Accepted without revisions
- Accepted with minor revisions (formatting or editorial corrections)
- Accepted with major revisions (substantive and editorial corrections)
- Rejected
The editors are responsible for reviewing all comments received from the reviewers and preparing a consolidated decision letter for the authors.
Authors are entitled to express their disagreement with the outcome of the review, provided that their arguments are supported by academic or scientific reasoning or by evidence supporting their position.
However, the journal is under no obligation to reconsider its decision. Any appeal will nevertheless be evaluated to determine whether it is justified and whether clarification should be requested from the reviewers or, if the editor considers that bias or an unfair assessment may have affected the review, whether an additional reviewer should be invited.
Revised Versions
Once the reports from the two or three reviewers have been consolidated, the journal will issue a single decision and communicate it to the authors.
Manuscripts accepted subject to revision must be resubmitted together with a response letter detailing the changes made and providing a point-by-point response to the comments of each reviewer.
The revised manuscript will be evaluated again by the reviewers, and based on their recommendations or final approval, the editor will make the final decision regarding publication.
If the revised manuscript still presents deficiencies previously identified by one or more reviewers, the authors will be given an additional opportunity to make the required revisions. If the deficiencies are not satisfactorily addressed, the manuscript may be rejected at that stage.
Likewise, failure to submit the revised version within the deadline agreed upon with the editor may result in rejection of the manuscript unless the authors request an extension to complete the revisions.
Timelines
On average, the complete evaluation cycle for a manuscript that successfully progresses through all stages of the editorial process takes approximately one academic quarter (about three months).
If difficulties arise in identifying available reviewers or delays occur in receiving review reports, the journal will take the necessary steps to reassign the manuscript and will keep the authors informed throughout the process.
Requests, Complaints, and Appeals
If authors disagree with any evaluation outcome, editorial procedure, or specific request made during the publication process, they are encouraged to contact the journal directly through its official editorial email.
Such requests, complaints, or appeals will be evaluated by the editors or the Editor-in-Chief, and the journal will proceed in accordance with the circumstances and merits of each individual case.
