- Title: Revista Guillermo de Ockham
- Short title: Guillermo Ockham
- SciELO acronym: RGDO
- e-ISSN: 2256-3202
- DOI journal: https://doi.org/10.21500/issn.2256-3202
- Frequency: biannual (January-June) (July-December)
A journal deserves to be recognized and indexed when it publishes original and unpublished scientific articles, derived from research projects evaluated by qualified external peers. The review process is the one that transforms manuscripts into science. The quality of the contents published by The Guillermo de Ockham Journal is supported by the evaluation process carried out by the editorial team and external peers. In this section, authors, researchers, peer reviewers, and the community in general, may have information on the review process followed by each of the manuscripts submitted to the journal. Peer reviewers are requested to read this section. It provides clarity about the type of review, what is understood by peer review, the functions entrusted to it, conflicts of interest, responsibilities, ethics, the review process and its timing.
The type of review adopted by the journal is double-blind or double anonymity. Neither authors nor peers know their identities. The preference for this type of review is to avoid conflict of interest or bias in the process (geographical origin, gender, academic background, reputation in the field, publication history, etc.). The purpose of this type of evaluation is to obtain a neutral and objective concept of the peer reviewer, focused on the information in the manuscript, the method, the data, the results and the arguments developed by the authors.
For The Guillermo de Ockham Journal, a peer reviewer is a qualified expert in the subject area of the manuscript, with experience in research, external to the institution that finances the journal, with postgraduate training (master's or doctorate), who has no conflict of interest and can give an objective opinion of the manuscript.
The main function of the peer reviewer is to objectively and impartially review the content of the manuscript and ensure compliance with the quality standards required by the scientific community. The quality standards are related to:
In summary, the peer reviewer is responsible for reviewing the quality and relevance of the article and that the findings are supported by a good scientific method, background and theoretical framework. In addition, the peer reviewer informs the editor if they suspect any unethical conduct that may jeopardize the validity of the results.
A conflict of interest arises when a peer reviewer is unable to review a manuscript objectively and impartially. The following situations are examples of such cases:
If the peer reviewer presents any conflict of personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious nature, they should inform the editor and decline the invitation.
Peer reviewers have a high commitment to the journal, to its scientific community, to the general public who benefit from the findings and to any other actor who is linked to the results of the research. Therefore, the journal expects from them:
Peer review submission
The authors should present in the letter to the editor the ideal profile of the peer reviewer who should review the manuscript (academic background and thematic specialty). Eventually, the authors may propose the names of some peers who would be in the competence to review the manuscript. To this end, they should declare that they have no conflicts of interest, that they have not been made aware of them and that there will be no communication of any kind that could affect the process. If any conduct on the part of the authors that could jeopardize the evaluation of the manuscript is identified, the process will be rejected.
Once the profile of the peer reviewer (presented by the authors) and the subject matter of the manuscript have been reviewed, the editor identifies at least two peers who would be able to review the manuscript. The editor will choose between international or national peers, rely on their editorial or scientific committee to have some recommendations, and in eventual cases, will choose a peer proposed by the authors (after reviewing their profile). This process, together with the preparation of the manuscript, may take an average of one week, according to the workflow of the journal.
Peer review invitation
Once the peer reviewers have been identified, they are sent an invitation through Open Journal Systems (OJS), the editorial management platform of the journal. In the invitation, the title and abstract of the article, the review policy of the journal, and the time proposed for the delivery of the concept (four weeks) are presented. A maximum of eight days is given to receive a response. If no response or a negative one is received within this time, other peers are invited. When the response is positive, OJS automatically enables the manuscript, the evaluation format, and the evaluation instructions.
Once the peer reviewer accepts the invitation, they have four weeks to issue their concept. The evaluation must be done through OJS. The journal has a simple and intuitive system for review. The manuscript can be accessed in word or pdf, downloaded, annotated, and then registered in the evaluation format presented by the system. There will be the option to attach files before submitting the manuscript to the editor. If due to situations beyond the peer's control, the concept takes more time than planned, they must notify the editor, explain the situation and request additional time so that the system does not disable it (the evaluations are configured temporarily and when these times are closed, the system does not allow access). The editor thanks the peers who can make the reviews on the proposed dates or communicate in time when a concept may take longer than projected.
In the evaluation, apart from rating each section of the article, the peer reviewer has the possibility to address the authors and give their recommendations. In this format, the peer can also give recommendations to the editor (these will not be visible or shared with the authors). At the end of the form, the peer will recommend one of the following options to the editor:
The final publication decision will be made by the editor and the editorial committee, who will take into account the concepts of the peers and the editorial evaluation.
In some cases, articles may be approved conditionally, i.e., once the authors have made changes. Some changes can be reviewed by the editor and advance to the editing process, but in other cases, it is necessary that peers accompany this stage, especially when the adjustments are of such specialty that only the peer reviewer can validate them. For this reason, the Revista Guillermo de Ockham thanks the peers to keep this aspect of the process in mind, in order to count on them in the review and approval of adjustments.
Third peer reviewer
journal sends manuscripts to two peer reviewers. On some occasions, the concepts issued by the reviewers may be contradictory. In this sense, the editor will rely on the editorial committee to settle the controversies and make the decision to approve or reject the manuscript. If there are duly justified dissimilar arguments, the manuscript will be sent to a third peer reviewer. Based on the opinion of the third peer reviewer, the editor and the editorial committee will decide whether to accept or reject the manuscript.
Peer review certification
the end of the process, the editor will send the peer reviewer a duly signed certificate stating that they contributed as an expert validating the scientific content for the Revista Guillermo de Ockham.