Reviewer Guidelines

Guidelines for Reviewers

Download Spanish (Click)
Download English (Click)

The peer evaluation procedure will be managed through the journal's digital platform. It will be carried out under a double-blind modality, the authors will not know the identity of the reviewers, and the reviewers will evaluate the contributions without knowing their authors. Those who are required to evaluate contributions have the duty of confidentiality or the obligation to maintain secrecy and not disclose the document that they have been entrusted to arbitrate. They therefore undertake to maintain total confidentiality regarding the data, results or any other finding of which they have become aware as a consequence of their work as evaluators, refraining from making use of the arguments, data or any other discovery contained in the articles until to be published.

In the event that the reviewer desists from carrying out the review, he or she must communicate this decision to the Editorial Committee and ideally make suggestions regarding other possible qualified reviewers for the proposed document.

Upon accepting the arbitration of the proposed document, the reviewer must rate a series of items that we present and order in the evaluation format that exists for this purpose on the journal's digital platform.

The result of the reviewer's evaluation will consist of the responses to the aforementioned evaluation format (editable online or downloadable from the journal's website), and a copy of the reviewed document where all the comments, observations and corrections considered pertinent have been recorded. Both elements, responses to the form and the document with observations, will be managed on the magazine's digital platform, as a last resort they can be sent by email to the address fondoeditorial@unsm.edu.pe

Responsibilities of the referees

1. Accept the review of texts adjusted to their area of specialty, in order to carry out an appropriate evaluation.
2. Declare from the beginning of the process if they have any conflict of interest. If he or she suspects the identity of the author(s) he or she must notify the journal if this knowledge raises a possible conflict of interest.
3. Reject the review immediately if it is not possible to deliver it within the agreed deadline.
4. Issue the evaluation based on the originality, the contribution of the article to the topic, the methodology used, the relevance and timeliness of the bibliography used; the style, coherence and quality in the structure and writing of the text.
5. Inform the journal, immediately, if during the evaluation he or she finds or discovers that does not have the necessary experience to evaluate all aspects of the text.
6. Their critiques will be objective, specific and constructive.
7. Clearly define the approval, rejection or conditioning of the text.
8. Issue their evaluation within the agreed period.
9. Respect confidentiality during and after the evaluation process.
10. Do not use content from the revised or revised text.
11. Do not involve other people in the review we request.
12. Inform the journal if they detect similarity of the text with another that they have reviewed or if they identify any type of plagiarism.
13. We do not allowed to transfer the responsibility of making an opinion to any other person, assistant or collaborator.

Starting with V!N", the RAD expresses its gratitude to the specialists who have collaborated with their reports in the external evaluation of the articles, making their names and affiliation visible. If you do not want your data to be public, you can request its withdrawal by contacting the email fondoeditorial@unsm.edu.pe.

Peer review is an important process within scientific publishing that allows to guarantee to a great extent the quality and relevance of the manuscripts that are presented for publication, for this reason it must be carried out with the greatest possible care and responsibility.

Duties of reviewers:

• Contribution to the editorial decision

• Haste

• Confidentiality

• Objectivity

• Disclosure of conflicts of interest

The evaluation process for the articles that are presented to the RAVGS is "double blind", assigning peer reviewers who are specialists of recognized suitability in the subject, in which both reviewers and authors do not know their identities. Evaluators review articles for quality, originality, relevance, and make technical judgments about possible publication.

After verifying that the subject of the submitted article is within their area of expertise, the reviewer has one month, counted from the receipt of the article, to submit their evaluation of the manuscript, in order not to lengthen the selection process. too much.

The evaluators must carry out their exercise in an impartial and confidential manner and are completely free to communicate possible conflicts to carry out the evaluation, whether due to academic, work or personal conflicts of interest, in relation to the article that they are asked to evaluate.

To carry out the evaluation, the peers have a form that is given to them together with the article, to facilitate their reading and response on the relevance and possible publication of the article. With the help of the evaluation format, the peer reviewer can deliver their opinion under one of the following alternatives:

• Accept without modifications

• Accept with modifications

• Reject

Manuscript Evaluation Form

The evaluation protocol for manuscripts to be evaluated by external peer reviewers refers to the rubric detailed below.

Parameter evaluated	Evaluation (YES/NO)
Originality of the manuscript
The research is original, current and relevant.
The title is innovative and encompasses the research presented in the document.
The summary highlights the most relevant points of the work, includes a brief summary of the main conclusions reached, without covering all of them.
The manuscript presents the current state of the problem (Related works or State of the art), by including the most relevant similar studies and highlighting their approaches, pros and cons.
In the manuscript, it correctly indicates what the research consists of, the proposed objectives, background and hypotheses.
Manuscript rigor
The Methodology precisely describes the procedure carried out during the design, experimentation and verification of the hypothesis. Timely introduces and specifies the resources, materials and methods used in each part of the process.
The results are conclusive and are consistent with the objectives and hypotheses of the article.
The Discussion interprets the results obtained, correlating them with other related works. List the advantages of the study and its contributions, as well as the difficulties encountered.
The bibliographical references are relevant, up-to-date and sufficient.
Clarity of the manuscript
The manuscript is clearly written in such a way that it is easy to follow and understand.
The figures and tables are of good quality and contribute to a better understanding of the subject. Every figure and table is correctly introduced and explained in the text.
Manuscript Relevance
The Conclusions respond to the objective of the study. They raise perspectives and the applicability of the results.
The manuscript contributes to the state of the art in an appropriate way.

Once the reviewer has assessed the parameters established in the format, he may issue his observations, suggestions and comments that justify the assessment made. Finally, the reviewer may suggest, based on the evaluation, if the submitted manuscript classifies in one of the aforementioned categories.

Once the results of the peer review have been received, the Editorial Committee of the journal analyzes the responses and, considering the comments of the peer reviewers and the associate editor, makes decisions on the publication of the article.

The Editorial Committee of the RAVGS clarifies that not all the evaluation results of an article must coincide in terms of the recommendations; therefore, it is the Editorial Committee who, based on all the observations, makes the final decision on the publication or not of the article.