Peer Review Process

All the papers presented to the publication for its editions will be submitted to a double blind arbitration process which will be done with the help of a pair of experts external to the editorial institution for each theme.

Evaluation profile. The pair of experts of Ingeniería Solidaría will possess at a minimum a Masters’degree, with preferably the title of Doctor, have papers published in the area that they are asked to evaluate and be external to the educational institution that supports the publication. The participation of the pair of experts will be ad honorem and it is hoped that it will be assumed as a pact of academic reciprocity, intended to try to contribute in a constructive manner to the strengthening (and validation) of the investigation and knowledge of other colleagues within the discipline.

Evaluators. Journal evaluators are expected to do a detailed and  constructive reading of each article they accept to review, seeking to not only give a recommendation of approval or rejection to the editor, but also enable authors, through their comments, to improve their texts and reflect on the scope, possibilities or shortcomings of their writings. Additionally, evaluators must consider that the texts entrusted to them by the editor are unpublished, and any improper or unauthorized use of the information contained therein would imply a serious unethical conduct. Moreover, the responsibility of evaluating a work, once accepted, cannot be transferred to third parties, especially if this has not been justified or previously consulted with the editor. Finally, any conflict of interest identified by the evaluator after receiving a work that may undermine their independence in the preparation of an opinion must be informed.

Exclusivity. The papers which are submitted to arbitration with Ingeniería Solidaría cannot have been evaluated by other publications, nor must they be presented simultaneously to other arbitration processes.

Timings. Once the article has been assigned for evaluation, the arbitration process will hopefully take 30 calendar days. The evaluator will make three types of judgment: approved without adjustments, approved with adjustments and rejected. If the pair of experts ask for adjustments, this will be notified to the authors for them to prepare a new version of the article which will be submitted for a second review.

Confidentiality. As the arbitration is effected through a “double blind system”, with the aim of guaranteeing greater independence of all parties (neither the authors, nor the evaluators will have data of each other’s identities, academic profile or origin), that information will only be known to those responsible for the publication and will not be revealed to third parties.

Peer Review Process

Ingenieria Solidaria Journal takes advantage of the efficiency and faster turnaround of the e-journal system, while maintaining the high standards of excellence that characterise traditional scientific journals. An integral part of this publication system is an unbiased, independent and critical peer review process.

Initial review

After a submission has been uploaded, an editor of the journal examines whether a submission falls within the journal's subject area and complies with the formal guidelines of the journal.

First round of review

All original submissions that are suitable for inclusion undergo a rigorous single-blind peer review by two reviewers. External specialists or subject matter experts from the Editorial Board conduct peer review at the request of the assigned editor(s). Reviewers’ identities are concealed from the author. 
Once a paper has entered the peer review process, the respective author is informed of the approximate date by which the managing editors will discuss and evaluate their manuscript as well as the date of possible publication. To facilitate timely publication, reviewers are asked to complete their reviews within one month.

Four types of reviewer recommendation are possible:

  1. Accept submission
  2. Likely accept, but minor revisions required
  3. Likely accept, but major revisions required
  4. Decline submission

Second round of review

In case a reviewer requests that an article be revised, the author has the opportunity to amend the article and resubmit it for a second review.
If minor revisions were required, the assigned editor(s) decides whether the amendments the author has made have taken into account all the points raised in the initial review.
If major revisions were needed, the revised version will be reevaluated by at least one of the reviewers. The review process, including possible resubmissions, may take up to three to four months.

Final decision

Based on the reviewers' recommendations the assigned editor(s) finally approve or refuse contributions, and the author is informed of the decision and its reasons.