Peer Review Policy

The articles published by Ingeniería Investiga are subjected to a rigorous evaluation process which consists on the following stages:

• Receipt of the manuscript
• Initial Review
• Peer review
• Second version of the manuscript
• Second revision
• Final opinion
• Publication

Receipt of manuscript

Once the manuscript is received, an email is sent to the authors through the journal's platform informing them that the review process will begin. This stage does not mean the acceptance of the article.

Initial Review

The papers sent to Investiga Engineering are evaluated in first instance by the Editorial Team, who will review the relevance of the article and subject matter, the compliance of the presentation guidelines contemplated in the checklist, and also run the anti-plagiarism software. Papers that do not meet the criteria of relevance, subject matter and editorial standards will not be accepted.

Peer review

The papers accepted by the editorial team will be submitted to a double-blind evaluation process. Reviewers will be mostly external and will be selected for their expertise and knowledge on the subject to which the work to be evaluated refers. Two reviewers will be asked to evaluate the work according to international standards and quality criteria for publication.

The reviewers will have the following characteristics: knowledge of the subject, no competence problems or conflict of interest, recognition as a researcher and academic, and responsibility and discretion in the evaluation.

Reviewers receive the standards and recommendations on ethics and good behavior that the Editorial Board expects. The selected reviewers do not receive remuneration. Authors of articles may suggest reviewers when they send the cover letter, the Editorial Team reserves the selection of reviewers.

The referees or reviewers make suggestions and recommendations on how to improve the article. The evaluation of the referees qualifies the paper as:

• Accepted
• Accepted with minor modifications
• Accepted with major modifications
• Rejected
• Suggested for another magazine

Format of reviewer's opinion

Dear reviewer, please note that the opinion form is a guide to make an objective judgment on the articles. If necessary, you can offer your observations and recommendations to the authors in order to improve their proposal or, in case of rejection, use scientific and academic arguments to support your opinion.

Please check or fill in each field as you consider appropriate according to the article evaluated.

Rate with the following statements: (4 = Excellent) (3 = Good) (2 = Sufficient) (1 = Poor) (Not applicable).

CHARACTERISTIC	EVALUATION
Originality	1 2 3 4  Not applicable
Field contribution	1 2 3 4  Not applicable
Theoretical and conceptual soundness	1 2 3 4  Not applicable
Rigor in methodology	1 2 3 4  Not applicable
Analysis and discussion of results	1 2 3 4  Not applicable
Validity and relevance of conclusions	1 2 3 4  Not applicable
Technical quality	1 2 3 4  Not applicable
Clarity of presentation	1 2 3 4  Not applicable
Depth of research	1 2 3 4  Not applicable

 

RECOMMENDATION	Accepted
	Accepted with minor modifications
	Accepted with major modifications
	Rejected on the grounds of (Please be specific)
	Work with suggestion for another journal

Additional Comments

Please add any additional comments or suggestions that could improve the article, if applicable.

 

Second version of the manuscript

If the paper has the status of accepted when it has passed the review process, nonetheless there are observations, the author must make the correction of all the observations, modifications and incorporate the contributions of the evaluators. In case the authors decide to send the new version to continue the evaluation process, the editorial team assigns a deadline according to the magnitude of the observations and modifications that generally fluctuates from 2 to 3 weeks. If the authors decide not to continue with the process, the manuscript will be removed from the journal's database and the reviewers will be informed.

If the article is rejected in the first or second instance by the reviewers, the authors are informed through a formal communication with the suggestions made.

Second revision

The article will be sent to the evaluators of the first version, with the purpose of verifying if the adjustments were considered by the authors. For this purpose, the original version will be sent together with the evaluation form, based on which the evaluators will inform if the article can be published.

Final opinion

The accepted paper is sent for proofreading and layout. The layout version will be sent to the author for review and returned with a letter of conformity and permission for publication.

Publication

When the editorial committee has all the documentation that allows it to publish the work, then the manuscript will be considered accepted for publication and a letter of acceptance will be sent with the date of publication.