Evaluation format

Indications for review

Dear peer reviewer, the Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud (RIICS) appreciates your participation. Peer review is the central part of our editorial process and allows us to identify articles that meet the quality criteria for publication. The review model followed by the journal is double-blind: neither authors nor peers know their identities. RIICS receives articles for research and review:

Research article: original and unpublished production that presents in a detailed and organized manner the results derived from a completed research project. It handles the following structure: abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, and conclusion (AIMRDyC).
Review article: original and unpublished research result that systematically compiles, organizes, and analyzes the most recent and important research in the area; exposes the evolution of a topic providing a general and current overview of its trends, controversies, and debates.

Please keep the following in mind:

1. RIICS uses a single format for evaluating the manuscripts it receives, so identify the type of article you are reviewing (research or review) and evaluate it according to its nature. If there are items on the form that do not apply to the manuscript, select the "Does not apply" option. Bearing in mind the type of article will allow an objective and precise evaluation to be carried out.

2. Keep the material that is sent to you and the evaluation concept that you issue confidential. This information cannot be shared or used outside of the process.

3. Preserve confidentiality and anonymity.

4. Declare if they have any type of conflict of interest that prevents the evaluation.

5. Reject this invitation if the subject of the article does not fit your academic profile or subject specialty.

6. Objectively review the quality of the article.

7. Please be clear, technical, and argue your returns. RIICS and the authors welcome any comments that help improve the publication.

8. Please be objective and neutral with your criticism, justify your claims and be constructive with your comments. RIICS asks its peer reviewers to avoid disrespectful, personal and unnecessary comments.

9. Refrain from making demands on the authors that exceed the limits and objectives of the research.

10. Inform the editor if you find coincidences of the article with any work previously published or in the process of revision.

11. Check for plagiarism and / or self-plagiarism.

12. Report to the editor if there are reasonable suspicions or doubts regarding the veracity, manipulation of the data or biases in the investigation.

13. Review the information sources consulted in the article and suggest modifications if necessary.

14. Deliver requested evaluations on time, or contact the editor in advance if delays are anticipated.

For more information on our review policy, you can refer to the "Review Policies" section.

Conflict of interests

A conflict of interest can arise when the peer reviewer cannot make an objective and impartial evaluation of an article. This situation can occur for any of the following situations:

1. If you have a personal, family, professional or business relationship with the author.

2. If you work, have worked and / or published with the author.

3. If you will be working with the author on a similar research project or proposal

4. If you are working on a similar topic or have previously published it.

The peer reviewers must report to the Editor, in the invitation or in the evaluation process, any conflict of interest.

Evaluation format

This format evaluates the following categories:

1. Originality
2. Relevance and pertinence
3. Introduction
4. Method
5. Results
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
8. References
9. Scientific and ethical integrity
10. Editorial quality

Each category has a statement that guides the peer reviewer (the statement does not seek to be exhaustive, but rather a guide) and is evaluated through a scale of agreements and disagreements where:

Totally agree: completely complies with what is stated in the category.
Agree: it complies with the category, but some aspects need to be complemented.
Disagree: there is little information and it is not enough to answer the category.
Totally disagree: this information is not evidenced.
Does not apply: due to the nature of the article, the category does not apply.

Please note that RIICS uses only one format for the evaluation of articles, therefore, identify if the article is research or review and evaluate it according to its nature. If there are items that do not apply to the item, select the “Not applicable” option.

After you have read and reviewed the article, please record your evaluation below: