REFEREEING SYSTEM

MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

The editorial committee of Minerva Revista Multidisciplinaria de Investigación Científica is a collegiate team of national and international professional experts, with high professional and research prestige in their specific areas, who guarantee the quality of the papers received for publication, in compliance with the Journal's standards and under the double-blind scheme. This team of professionals has the mission of reviewing the formal and substantive aspects of the papers so that they can meet international standards of quality, rigor, novelty, initiative, originality, writing, and other characteristics of a research paper.

The authors receive a peer review report, which includes the aspects that must be improved so that the work may or may not continue its publication process. This review process is confidential, objective, and precise in the wording of their comments on the documents processed for publication. The process is done through the OJS platform or by e-mail.

The team of reviewers and editors is public and is available at the following link: http://minerva.autanabooks.com/index.php/Minerva/about/editorialTeam

1. Acceptance/rejection criteria for manuscript evaluation

The editors of Minerva Revista Multidisciplinaria de Investigación Científica request, through an invitation, the collaboration of reviewers, considering their expertise in the subject according to their professional background. The participation of reviewers is fundamental to the publication process, therefore the assessment for the selection of a reviewer is subject to:

a. Professional competence and experience in the subject of the article.

b. Availability of time and disposition.

c. Conflict of interest, the reviewer may detect any relationship with the authors, with the university involved, or with the group of researchers, so the selected reviewer may refuse to review.

d. Confidentiality: The review cannot be shared with third parties, any concerns regarding the reviews should be consulted with the editor.

The reviewer should advise the editor of the reasons for not reviewing the manuscript.

2. Review

The reviewers have the function of attending the manuscripts objectively and provide the necessary information so that they comply with the aspects of quality of content and quality of format, so they should evaluate the characteristics of the research and contribute constructively to its improvement, as well as ensure that the aspects of format are fulfilled.

The reviewers will issue a report to the authors specifying the observations to be followed for the improvement of the manuscript. This report includes all aspects of form and content so that the research can be published.

3. General criteria for evaluation of the manuscript

The fundamental criteria that the reviewers will consider for the manuscript to be adequate will be the following:

The originality of the manuscript. The papers to be published must comply with originality, so reviewers may rely on publication tools to validate the relevance of the papers. Manuscripts should be written in such a way that they guarantee the attractiveness and interest of the scientific community, in such a way that they meet modern research expectations and are adapted to current and scientifically relevant topics and requirements. The title should be written without an excess of words and with precision in the subject, the abstract should describe in a few words the work carried out, highlight the work done and the methods for its execution, and include a brief synthesis of the main conclusions reached. The introduction should summarize the work done within the subject, the background of the topic, and its relevance to the research described.

The rigor of the manuscript. The manuscript must comply with the academic and research rigors, therefore the methodology must cover the methodological aspects of the research, taking into account the mathematical characteristics if applicable. The results should contain clearly and concisely the aspects found in the research, to the stated objectives. References should comply with the IEEE standards for the journal and should include each of the works cited without exception and without adding other work that is not cited, for which the use of reference managers is suggested.

Clarity of the manuscript. The manuscript should be written in a clear, scientific, and technical manner, complying with the grammatical norms of the Real Academia Española in the case of papers in Spanish. Aspects of syntax and grammar will also be reviewed in the case of manuscripts submitted in other languages such as English or Portuguese. Authors must strictly respect the journal's regulations for these aspects.

Relevance of the manuscript. The manuscript should have clear and well-written conclusions that value the relevance of the research and enhance the prospects of the study.

4. Ethical reasons

The reviewers should verify the ethical conduct of the manuscripts, and advise the editor about doubts of ethical conduct if there are any.

5. Manuscript evaluation process in OJS

- Access the OJS system of the University, Science and Technology journal platform, with your user name and password, using the URL: http://minerva.autanabooks.com/index.php/Minerva/user/register.

6. Evaluation report

The reviewers must comply with the formats for peer review, and may consider three possibilities:

Accepted without modifications: corresponds to those papers that comply with the characteristics of form and content required in the journal's regulations, which can be published in the issue where there is availability.

Accepted with modifications: corresponds to those papers that comply with the characteristics of form and content required by the journal's rules, but that require some improvements for their final publication.

Rejected: those papers that do not comply with the journal's guidelines will be considered rejected. Therefore, any paper submitted without the format and strict rules of the journal will not pass peer review and will be considered immediately REJECTED.

Comments should be clear, concise, objective, and supported so that the author and editors can understand the suggestions made and the decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. Reviewers are encouraged to maintain formal and friendly language in their comments.

7. Aspects of manuscript evaluation for external reviewers

Reviewers should review the following aspects for evaluations of papers submitted to the journal:

Format of the journal, the papers should fully comply with the format established in the journal and available at the URL: http://minerva.autanabooks.com/index.php/Minerva/information/authors

1. Adequate subject matter for the journal.

2. Abstract.

3. Introduction and state of the art.

4. Methodology.

5. Results.

6. Arrangement and description of tables and figures.

7. Conclusions.

8. References within the IEEE standard.

9. Ethical considerations.

10. Conflict of interest.

8. Instance that will approve the article after its evaluation.
The editorial committee will take into account the revisions made by the reviewers and will make a final revision of the aspects observed to improve the content, thus guaranteeing the quality of the final manuscript.