Publication and peer review process
Articles submitted to the Natura@economía journal are evaluated by the editor in coordination with the Editorial Board. This process consists of three stages.
1: The article must be within the publication lines of the journal and written based on the established format (article organization). The review is carried out in the first 15 days after the article is entered, only the articles that comply pass to the second stage.
2: In this instance, the relevance and originality of the article are evaluated, which is in charge of the co-editors. Generally, this process lasts 15 to 20 days, only the articles that comply pass to the third stage (per review)
3: In this instance, the arbitration system is double-blind, (peer review), resorting to a minimum of two (2) reviewers or external evaluators, so that within a maximum period of thirty days they express their opinions (according to the “Form of revision”), recommending the acceptance or rejection of the article. If the article does not conform to the editorial line or conditions requested by the authors, the Editor reserves the right to send a report to the author to change or rewrite his article, totally or partially, and the authors must start the process of sending their work. In the worst case, the manuscript is rejected and the authors are notified, attaching a report with the reasons for the rejection. The name of the reviewers is kept anonymous to the author(s) throughout the process. In general, this process lasts from 40 to 60 days.
The reviewers answer the “Review Form” which contains the following questions:
- Is the article a new and original contribution?
- Is the abstract adequate?
- Are the keywords appropriate?
- Does the submitted material clearly specify the purpose of the work?
- Is the method strategy, intervention, or experiment suitable, applicable and replicable?
- Are the results valid for other contexts and realities?
- Is the stated objective achieved?
- Is the bibliography adequate and up-to-date for the development of the topic?
- Do you consider that the conclusions are consistent with the information presented?
- Does the material needs to be reviewed in terms of style, spelling, and grammar?
- Suggestions and recommendations about the article.
- How would you rate this article?
Outstanding ___; Very Good ___; Okay ___; Regular ___; Poor ___ - Is the article acceptable for publication?
YES, in its current form.
YES, with some modifications.
YES, after major review.
NO, it should by rejected.
Upon receipt of the “Review Form” sent by the reviewers, the opinions are sent to the author to take into account the suggestions and/or comments of the reviewers, including those of the editor, and resubmit the manuscript. The procedure is repeated until there are no observations. Once approved, the manuscript is sent to the editing area for the respective layout. Prior to publication, the author receives proof of their article for final review and/or approval. It could be the case of a rejection of the publication when the survey of the observations is not satisfactory for the reviewers and/or editors.
