Peer Review Policy
Peer Review Policy
Research and Critical Thinking Journal (IPC)
1. Objective
The Research and Critical Thinking Journal (IPC) guarantees that all published manuscripts are evaluated through an independent, objective, confidential, and transparent peer review process, with the purpose of ensuring the scientific, methodological, and ethical quality of the research published in the journal.
This policy governs the peer review system used by IPC and establishes the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors during the evaluation process.
2. Review Model
IPC employs a double-blind peer review system.
In this model:
Authors are unaware of the reviewers' identities.
Reviewers are unaware of the authors' identities.
The identities of both parties remain confidential throughout the editorial process.
This procedure seeks to reduce potential biases related to institutional affiliation, nationality, academic prestige, gender, or other personal circumstances.
3. Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers will be selected by the Editor-in-Chief or the Section Editor considering:
academic experience;
scientific output;
specialization in the manuscript's subject matter;
independence from the authors;
absence of conflicts of interest.
Whenever possible, reviewers will belong to institutions different from those of the authors and will have demonstrable experience in the relevant field of knowledge.
4. Number of Reviewers
As a general rule, each manuscript will be evaluated by two independent, external reviewers.
When significant discrepancies arise between the opinions expressed, or when the Editorial Committee deems it necessary, a third reviewer may be requested.
5. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers will analyze, among other aspects:
originality of the work;
relevance to the journal's scope;
scientific quality;
methodological rigor;
theoretical foundation;
analysis and interpretation of results;
Timeliness and relevance of bibliographic references;
clarity of writing;
contribution to scientific knowledge;
compliance with ethical principles.
Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, and well-founded feedback.
6. Editorial Decisions
Based on the evaluation reports, the Responsible Editor will make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
Editorial decisions may fall into one of the following categories:
Accepted without modifications.
Accepted with minor modifications.
Requires major modifications.
Rejected.
The final decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief, who may also consider other relevant elements of the editorial process.
7. Review of Revised Versions
When a manuscript requires revisions, the authors must submit:
a revised version of the manuscript;
a detailed response to each reviewer's observation.
The Editor will assess whether the revisions are sufficient or if it is necessary to resubmit the manuscript to the reviewers.
8. Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for evaluation are confidential documents.
Reviewers agree to:
not disclose their contents;
not share the documents with third parties;
not use the information obtained during the review for their own benefit or that of third parties;
destroy or eliminate copies of the manuscript once the evaluation process is complete.
9. Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must immediately inform the Editor of any circumstance that could affect their independence or objectivity.
These include, but are not limited to:
personal relationships with the authors;
recent scientific collaboration;
membership in the same research group;
direct academic competition;
financial or institutional interests.
When a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer must abstain from participating in the evaluation.
