The manuscripts given to the reviewer are previously evaluated by the Editorial Committee which determines the exclusion of the manuscript according to the following criteria:

• Do not adapt to aims and scope stablished by the journal.
• Do not meet the regulation for the authors stablished by the journal.
• To infringe the academic ethics (originality, plagiarism, etc.)
• Do not apply the good practices stablished by the journal.
• Editorial endogamy

The previous revision carried out by the Editorial Committee does not prevent the author from revising and presenting again in observed article.

Reviewer’s responsibilities

The reviewers chosen to emit an evaluation and/or an opinion about the manuscripts shouldconsider the following premises:

• To accept manuscripts that answers the academic experience and the reviewer’s profile.
• To send the opinions among the period of time stablished by the journal.
• Keep discretion of the evaluated manuscript (confidentiality) before and after the process.
• The reviewer must not contact the manuscripts’ author(s)
• The reviewer’s decisions and his or her given opinions do not rely on the editors’ point of view.

Reviewer’s election

• The called reviewer will become part of the journal’s data base, must specialize on investigation guidelines that match the manuscript, must adjust it to his or her investigator profile
• The acceptance or declination of the evaluation of a manuscript must be explicit, the declination will not have negative consequences for the reviewer.
• The evaluation are carried out under the double blind method (the author and the reviewer are anonymous)

Verdict of the revision

The reviewer must choose one of the options once the manuscript is evaluated:

• Accepted: the manuscript does not need major changes, probably just a few adjustments suggested by the reviewer.
• Accepted with modifications: the manuscript needs major changes suggested by the reviewer.
• Rejected: the manuscript does not have the chance of being published and for different reasons of academic character or investigation does not fulfill the requirements of the editorial quality.In rejection,the summary, objectives, methods and technics, results, discussion, conclusion or references can be observed.

Ethics recommendation:

• The reviewer will not give an opinion about the manuscript based on any type of discrimination (racial, politics, ideological, religious or cultural discrimination)
• The reviewer will not use the data or the information from the manuscript; or use it for his or her own benefit.
• The reviewer must keep the data or information from the manuscript confidential.
• The reviewer must not assume the evaluation of a manuscript that faces a possible conflict of interests.
• The reviewers will not intervene in the evaluation of manuscripts when he or she investigates or searches a similar topic or becomes a member of the investigation
• The reviewers must be constructive and clear when giving comments in the evaluation.