Editorial Procedure

The caui3 editorial process has been established based on a set of procedures that begin with the submission of the manuscript to the journal and culminate in its publication or rejection. The process involves multiple stages that are logically and sequentially connected. Consequently, a delay at any stage implies delays in the following stages. Therefore, authors must comply with the deadlines established by the Editorial Committee. Finally, the Editorial Team decides whether to reject an article when the documentation for it is submitted after the deadline.  

The complete editorial process defined for caui3 consists of the following stages: 

  1. Submission of the article by the authors.
  2. Formal review by the editorial team (first editorial decision - acceptance or rejection).
  3. Review and verification of compliance with the minimum percentage of similarity <=12% (second editorial decision - acceptance or rejection).
  4. Assignment of two external peer reviewers, who will carry out a double-blind review process.
    Each peer reviewer will report their findings via the computer platform implemented.
  5. The results may be:
      • The article is suitable for publication.
      • Corrections are required.
      • Not suitable for publication..
  6. Final decision by the Editorial Team, based on the decisions and comments of the referees, the final decision may be:
      • It is published when all reviewers accept the article and all suggested corrections have been made.
      • You must make corrections to the article (in form and/or content) if requested by any of the peer reviewers or editors.
      • Its publication is rejected.
  7. In any case, authors will be informed of the decision made.
  8. For articles accepted for publication, the editor-in-chief will inform the authors of the volume and issue in which the article will be published..

Editors' Responsibilities

  1. Supervision of the Editorial Process
    • Review submitted manuscripts and decide which ones are suitable for peer review.
    • Coordinate the peer review process, assigning appropriate reviewers and ensuring that comments are fair and constructive.
    • Take the final decision on whether to accept or reject manuscripts, based on the reviewers' recommendations and your own judgment.
  2. Maintenance of Quality Standards
    • Ensure that published articles meet standards of scientific quality, originality, and relevance.
    • Ensure that ethical standards are followed in publication, including the prevention of plagiarism, conflicts of interest, and proper handling of authorship.
    • Implement policies for the continuous improvement of editorial quality, including updating guidelines for authors and reviewers..
  3. Interaction with Authors and Readers
    • Maintain open and transparent communication with authors, ensuring that they understand the status of their manuscript and the editorial process.
    • Respond to queries and comments from authors and readers, resolving disputes or clarifying editorial policies.
    • Promote and publicize published articles, using media such as social networks, e-newsletters, and conferences..
  4. Management of Ethical and Legal Issues
    • Ensure that the journal complies with international ethical standards, such as the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
    • Properly manage any situation that requires the retraction of an article, including communication with authors and public justification.
  5. Innovation and Adaptation
    • Incorporate new technologies that improve the editorial process and the experience of authors and readers, such as peer review platforms or plagiarism detection tools.
    • Keep up to date with changes and trends in the field of scientific publishing and adapt the journal accordingly.
  6. Representation of the Journal
    • Represent the journal at conferences, symposiums, and other academic events, establishing connections with researchers and professionals in the field.
    • Encourage collaborations with other journals, academic institutions, and scientific organizations to strengthen the journal's position in the global community.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

  1. Evaluate the Scientific Quality of the Manuscript
    • Assess whether the methods used in the research are appropriate, rigorous, and well described, allowing for the replicability of the study.
    • Review whether the results presented are robust, well interpreted, and supported by the data.
    • Determine whether the work offers a significant contribution to the field, whether in terms of new knowledge, theories, or methodologies.
  2. Evaluate the Structure and Clarity of the Manuscript
    • Verify that the manuscript is well organized, with clear and coherent ideas, and that it follows the standard structure of a scientific article (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion).
    • Evaluate whether the language used is clear, concise, and free of grammatical or stylistic errors that could hinder comprehension.
    • Check that the figures, tables, and other graphic elements are appropriate, well presented, and effectively complement the text.
  3. Critical Content Review
    • Ensure that the author has conducted an adequate review of the existing literature and cited the relevant sources.
    • Assess whether the discussion is well-founded and whether the conclusions are logically derived from the results presented.
    • Detect possible errors, inconsistencies, or gaps in the data or in the interpretation of the results..
  4. Evaluating Ethics in Research
    • Verify that the study has been conducted in accordance with relevant ethical standards, such as informed consent in human research or the proper treatment of animals.
    • Check that the manuscript does not contain plagiarized material and that it is an original contribution by the author..
  5.  Provide Constructive Feedback
    • Provide detailed and specific comments that help authors improve their manuscript, whether publication is recommended or not.
    • Offer suggestions for improving the scientific quality, clarity, or presentation of the manuscript, such as revising certain sections, adjusting statistical analyses, or improving the discussion of results.
    • Ensure that feedback is constructive and respectful, avoiding personal or derogatory comments.
  6. Publication Recommendation
    • Provide a recommendation to the editor regarding the publication of the manuscript, which may be to accept, accept with minor revisions, request major revisions, or reject.
    • Clearly explain the reasons behind the final recommendation so that both authors and editors understand the decision..
  7. Meet the Deadlines
    • Complete the review within the time allocated by the journal, so as not to delay the editorial process.
    • Inform the editor as soon as possible if a delay is anticipated or if the reviewer feels unable to complete the review, so that an alternative reviewer can be found..
  8. Confidentiality
    • Treat all information contained in the manuscript as confidential; do not share or discuss it with third parties.
    • Declare any conflicts of interest that may affect the impartiality of the review, such as financial, personal, or academic ties to the authors.
  9. Contribute to the Continuous Review Process
    • Review revised versions of manuscripts to verify that authors have adequately addressed previous suggestions and comments.
      Cooperate with other reviewers if necessary, ensuring a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the manuscript.
  10. Promote Scientific Integrity
    • Promote standards of scientific integrity through fair and objective review, helping to maintain the quality of published scientific literature.