Peer Review Process

Publication Protocols and Directives

Investigación y Desarrollo adheres to the subsequent directives and benchmarks for its scholarly periodicals:

  • ICMJE:Papers with a medical orientation abide by the directives set forth by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These directives offer a thorough overview of the editorial process, encompassing journal administration, peer-review nuances, and mechanisms for addressing grievances. Notably, the bulk of these guidelines are universally applicable.

  • CONSORT: This elucidates the documentation process for randomized, controlled experiments. We prompt authors to cross-check their work in accordance with the provided checklist and schematic, to be incorporated during submission.

  • TOP: Emphasizes the transparent and candid representation of research findings. Our periodicals strive for a grade 1 or 2 across all TOP dimensions. Specific criteria are journal-dependent and can be sourced from the editorial department.

  • FAIR Principles: These standards underscore the enhancement of Data's Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability.

  • PRISMA: Targets systematic evaluations and meta-analyses. We advise contributors to finalize the checklist and diagram, which should accompany the manuscript upon submission.

  • ARRIVE: Provides a framework for documenting in vivo studies. We urge authors to countercheck their study against the outlined checklist, to be included in their manuscript submission.

Adherence to the aforementioned standards is pivotal during the concluding decision phase. Any divergences therein should be meticulously rationalized by the authors. It's advisable for contributors to underscore relevant directives within their introductory letter.

Editorial Autonomy

All scholarly articles disseminated by Investigación y Desarrollo undergo a peer review, overseen by our autonomous Editorial Panels. The Investigación y Desarrollo team remains extrinsic to the manuscript acceptance deliberations. We anticipate the academic editor's verdict to be predicated exclusively on:

  1. The aptness of nominated reviewers;
  2. The pertinence of reviewer feedback and author retort;
  3. The overarching academic merit of the article.

Across all our periodicals and operational facets, Investigación y Desarrollo's strategies are sculpted by the overarching goal: to amplify the accessibility and dissemination of scientific insights promptly and expansively.

Initial Review

The first review phase encompasses two primary tasks: a technical evaluation by the Editorial Department and an academic overview by an expert editor.

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Chief Editorial Manager of the journal examines:

  • The manuscript's alignment with the journal/section/special edition's objectives;
  • The paper's commitment to superior research and ethical norms;
  • Adequate rigor for progressing to the next review stage. Following this, an academic editor (for standard submissions, this is often the Editor-in-Chief; for special editions, the Guest Editor, and in situations with potential conflicts of interest or when the Editor-in-Chief deems it fit, a member of the Editorial Board) is informed about the submission and asked to conduct an academic overview. This stage lets the academic editor evaluate the paper's fit with the journal's theme and scrutinize its scientific validity, encompassing the relevance of cited literature and the accuracy of the methodology used. Based on their assessment, academic editors have the discretion to decline the submission, ask for modifications pre-review, or advance it to the peer-review stage, suggesting potential reviewers.

Guest Editors, when dealing with their articles for Special Editions, are restricted from making decisions due to the potential conflict of interest. Instead, a board member from the Editorial team steps in to make determinations. The Guest Editor can only view the review procedure in their capacity as the writer. Similarly, Editors-in-Chief and other board members can only engage with the review of their papers strictly as authors.

Evaluation by Peers

Throughout the period from initial submission to the final verdict or publication, a dedicated Investigación y Desarrollo representative supervises the evaluation procedure and acts as the central liaison for authors, academic editors, and evaluators.

This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.  

To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity.  

Each manuscript undergoes scrutiny by a minimum of two reviewers. During the initial review, academic editors can suggest potential reviewers. Alternatively, Investigación y Desarrollo’s team can select from the Editorial Board, extract from their reviewer database, or identify new reviewers by analyzing related online content.

The Investigación y Desarrollo team verifies the absence of conflicts of interest, excluding those with potential biases. 

Reviewers are subjected to the following criteria:

  • No existing conflicts of interest with any author;

  • Not being from the same institution as the authors;

  • No co-publications with the authors within the past three years;

  • Possess a PhD or MD (relevant for health-related journals);

  • Have a pertinent background and a verified history of publications in the manuscript's domain (verified via platforms like Scopus, ORCID);

  • Are esteemed experts in the manuscript's field;

  • Affiliated with an official academic institution. Reviewers, upon agreeing to review, are anticipated to:

  • Be adequately knowledgeable to evaluate manuscript integrity;

  • Deliver valuable feedback and remain available during the review;

  • Uphold professional and ethical standards.

Review Process Timing and Communication

When reviewers consent to conduct a review, they are allocated a period of 7–10 days to complete it using our online system,OJS. Time extensions are available upon request.

When evaluating a modified manuscript, we ask reviewers to return their feedback within a span of three days, though time extensions are still available upon request.

To facilitate the work of academic editors, all correspondence with reviewers, authors, and the external editor is managed by the Investigación y Desarrollo team. Academic editors can monitor manuscript progress, know the identity of reviewers, and converse about manuscript evaluations at any point with Investigación y Desarrollo representatives.

Transparency in Peer Review

Investigación y Desarrollo journal offer a transparent peer-review model. This allows authors the choice to disclose the review feedback and their responses when the article is published, a practice often termed as open reports. Both reviewers and authors need to actively choose this transparent option. In cases where a manuscript is declined, no details are disclosed. We believe transparent peer-review enhances clarity regarding the evaluation process and provides readers with additional insights into the article. Authors are advised to consider this transparent model.

Editing & Feedback

When minor or significant changes are suggested, the Investigación y Desarrollo team will instruct the author to adjust the manuscript prior to directing it to the academic editor. If there are conflicting reviews or suggestions for rejection, the academic editor's input is solicited before any decision is relayed to the authors. At this juncture, academic editors may ask for additional reviewers.

Revised manuscript versions might be sent back to reviewers, particularly if they've requested to see the adjusted content. By default, reviewers suggesting comprehensive changes or recommending rejection will receive the updated manuscript. OJS allows all reviewers to view the latest manuscript iteration.

Typically, a manuscript undergoes up to two rounds of major revisions. If further revisions are advised by reviewers, the Investigación y Desarrollo team will consult the academic editor for a decision.

If anticipated revision durations exceed two months, we advise authors to retract their manuscript and resubmit later, ensuring in-depth manuscript refinement without time constraints.

Decision by the Editor

Post-peer review, once at least two review reports are in place, the academic editor has the authority to decide on manuscript acceptance. Such decisions are the purview of academic editors like the Editor-in-Chief, Guest Editors, or another competent member of the Editorial Board. Guest Editors, however, cannot decide on their submissions; these are redirected to an appropriate Editorial Board member. In the decision-making process, academic editors are expected to evaluate:

  • Reviewer appropriateness;
  • Depth of reviewer feedback and author's response;
  • Manuscript's overall scientific merit. Potential decisions include acceptance as is, acceptance post minor changes, rejection with or without a chance of resubmission, soliciting revisions, or seeking another reviewer's opinion.

Academic editors should keep the Editorial Office informed of potential conflicts that might, or appear to, skew decisions. 

While reviewers provide recommendations, academic editors or Editors-in-Chief can diverge from these opinions. If they do, reasons should be documented for both authors and reviewers.

Occasionally, an academic editor might support manuscript acceptance against a reviewer's rejection recommendation. In such cases, a second independent viewpoint from an Editorial Board member or the Editor-in-Chief is sought before finalizing any decision.

Only an academic editor can green-light a manuscript for publication. 

Manuscripts by Investigación y Desarrollo staff or Editorial Board members (including Editors-in-Chief) are processed impartially. These submissions are scrutinized by a minimum of two unaffiliated reviewers. Non-conflicted Editorial Board members finalize decisions.

Our aim is to publish scientifically accurate articles without artificially inflating journal rejection percentages, allowing the broader readership to determine the work's impact.