Peer Review Process

At Editorial Sinergy, we ensure the quality and scientific rigor of our publications through a double-blind peer review process. This mechanism guarantees impartiality and objectivity in the evaluation of manuscripts before publication.

Types of Applied Review

Two types of review are applied depending on the type of publication:

  • Complete books: Comprehensive evaluation of the content, structure, and methodology of the book.
  • Book chapters: Individual evaluation of each chapter according to its coherence, contributions, and relevance within the book.

 

Stages of the Review Process

The peer review process consists of the following stages:

Initial Editorial Review

  • The manuscript is verified to comply with the standards for authors and the editorial policy.
  • The document is submitted to similarity detection software to identify possible cases of plagiarism.
  • If the manuscript meets the basic requirements, it is sent for peer review; otherwise, the author is asked to make prior adjustments.

Selection of Reviewers

  • Two or more expert reviewers in the subject area of ​​the manuscript are chosen.
  • Reviewers must meet criteria of independence and have no conflicts of interest with the authors.
  • The double-blind review system is applied, where the identity of the authors and reviewers remains anonymous.

Evaluation of the Manuscript

The reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and scientific contribution.
  • Methodological rigor and solidity of the arguments.
  • Clarity and coherence in the writing.
  • Compliance with ethical and citation standards.

The reviewers may issue one of the following recommendations:

  • Acceptance without modifications.
  • Acceptance with minor modifications. (No further review required)
  • Major revision. (Requires further review after modifications)
  •  

Communication of Results to Authors

  • The authors receive a report with the reviewers' observations and recommendations.
  • If changes are required, the authors must send a corrected version within the established deadline.
  • In the case of a major revision, the manuscript will be evaluated again before a final decision is made.

Final Editorial Decision

  • After the reviewers' evaluation and the incorporation of adjustments, the Editorial Committee makes the final decision on publication.
  • If the manuscript is accepted, the authors are notified and the editing and layout phase begins.

 

Review Process Timeframes

The estimated time for each phase of the process is as follows:

Phase

Estimated Duration

Initial editorial review

2 - 4 weeks

Assignment of reviewers

1 - 2 weeks

Peer review

4 - 8 weeks

Sending comments to the author    

1 - 2 weeks

Receiving corrected version

2 - 6 weeks

Final evaluation

2 - 4 weeks

 

Criteria for selecting reviewers

  • Experts with relevant scientific publications in the field.
  • Independence and absence of conflict of interest with the authors.
  • Experience in reviewing scientific articles and books.
  • Commitment to confidentiality and ethics in evaluation.

 

Confidentiality and Ethics in Review

  • Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Reproduction, use or disclosure of the evaluated content is prohibited.
  • In case of detecting bad practices (plagiarism, data manipulation, conflicts of interest), reviewers must inform the Editorial Committee.

 

Contact and Inquiries

For more information about the peer review process, authors and reviewers can contact us through [email] or visit our website.