Peer review
The peer review process is an essential component of the editorial policy of the University UDECIC journals and ensures the scientific quality, transparency, and validity of the published articles. Each manuscript received is evaluated through a structured process that guarantees its academic relevance and originality.
First, the Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary review to verify the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope and its compliance with editorial guidelines. In addition, an anti-plagiarism check (Ithenticate by Turnitin) is applied, and the similarity index must not exceed 18%. Only texts that meet these criteria proceed to the editorial process.
Subsequently, an associate editor or a member of the editorial board performs a technical assessment of the manuscript’s coherence, methodological validity, and thematic relevance. If the manuscript meets the scientific standards, it is sent for external peer review under the double-blind modality, ensuring impartiality and confidentiality.
Reviewers, selected for their expertise and absence of conflicts of interest, provide a report with general and specific comments to help improve the work, even if the article is not accepted. Based on these reports, the editor communicates one of the following decisions: Accept without modifications, Accept with minor revisions, Revise and resubmit (major revisions), or Reject. Authors must address the reviewers’ comments and submit the revised version within the specified timeframe.
When the peer review reports contain divergent recommendations—one positive and one negative—the handling editor carefully evaluates both reviewers’ arguments and observations. If the opinions are substantially opposed or there is insufficient consensus, the editor may request the opinion of a third reviewer with recognized expertise in the subject area to obtain an additional and impartial assessment. The final decision, based on all reports and the academic judgment of the Editor-in-Chief, considers the strength of the arguments, the quality of the manuscript, and its coherence with the editorial standards of University UDECIC.
The Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the review reports and the authors’ responses, makes the final publication decision.
The approximate timeline of the process is as follows: initial evaluation up to 20 days, double-blind review between 45 and 60 days, and, if a third reviewer is required, an additional 30 days. These deadlines may vary depending on the complexity of the work and the availability of reviewers.
University UDECIC reaffirms its commitment to an ethical, transparent, and rigorous editorial process that promotes continuous improvement and academic excellence in scientific communication.
