Guide for Reviewers

The RACYT Editorial Committee will invite at least two external reviewers to carry out the manuscript evaluation process. Reviewers should consult the “Research and Publication Ethics” section before deciding to accept or reject the Review of a manuscript. If there is any Conflict of Interest, it must be communicated to the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers who do not accept the invitation are suggested to recommend a new Reviewer to be evaluated as their replacement by the Editorial Committee. The Editorial Committee will accept or not the submitted proposal.

Reviewers who have agreed to review a manuscript must log in to the RACYT OJS platform, starting from the user sent in the invitation. The entire process will be carried out on the OJS platform.

The review process that the Reviewers will carry out will be as described in Editorial Procedures and Peer Review.

Manuscript evaluation

In the review process, Reviewers must keep the following aspects in mind:

• Guide for authors: Reviewers on their comments to Authors, and Editors can declare any non-compliance or recommendation that appears in the (Guide for Authors).
• Evaluation of the manuscript: A series of questions are asked that will allow the Section editors and the Editor-in-Chief to make a fair decision. The possible answers to these questions would be “Yes”, “Can be improved”, “Should be improved” and “No”.
• Is there coherence between the title of the document and its content, or coherence between the summary of the document and its content?
• Does the Introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant and up-to-date references?
• Is the research design appropriate?
• Are the methods adequately described? Are the results presented and adequately discussed?
• ¿Se presentan claramente los resultados y se discuten adecuadamente?
• ¿Las conclusiones están respaldadas por los resultados?
• ¿La redacción y la ortografía son acordes con el tipo de publicación?
• Comments to Authors and Editors: The Reviewers will issue their comments and suggestions on the manuscript by the evaluation carried out previously.
• Qualification: The Reviewers will issue a rating based on the Recommendation. 0-59 Rejected, 60-89 Accepted with modifications and 90-100 Accepted.
• Recommendation: The Reviewers will recommend to the Section Editor one of the following three options, Rejected, Accepted, and Accepted with modifications. In the case of manuscripts that are recommended as rejected and accepted with modifications, the arguments that support the recommendation made must be presented. These arguments will be in writing to both the Authors (Comments to the authors) and the Editors (Comments to the Editor).

Important: The Recommendation issued by the Reviewer must be a fair judgment and by the Evaluation of the manuscript, the Comments to the Authors and Editors, and the Grading. Please note that it is essential that you explain and support your judgment so that both Editors and Authors can fully understand the reasoning behind your comments, especially if you recommend "Reject." In the case of "Accepted with modifications", be clear in your suggestions and requests.