On this page:
Definition of Peer Reviewer
Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud (RIICS) considers a peer reviewer as an active national or international researcher with postgraduate training in health professions -doctor or master-, with expertise, broad scientific production and thematic domain around the manuscripts which he/she evaluates.
Type of review
The type of review used by RIICS is double-blind: neither the peers nor the authors know their names or affiliations. This type of review allows the reduction of bias in the evaluation.
Role of the peer reviewer
The peer reviewer is in charge of verifying that the contents developed in the article comply with the standards of excellence established by the scientific community. The standards are related to the scientific method, the adequate review of the background that supports the research; verify that the methodologies applied are valid and current in the discipline; check the language used in terms of clarity, precision and unique; determine whether the analysis, interpretation of the results, discussion with the literature and proof or rejection of the hypotheses were rigorous. Basically, the peer reviewer is in charge of reviewing the quality -in form and content-, originality, relevance, contribution and possible ethical violations of the article submitted to the journal.
Please note the following:
1. Keep confidential the material that is sent to you and the evaluation concept subsequently issue. This information must not be shared or used outside the process.
2. Preserve confidentiality and anonymity.
3. Declare if there is any type of conflict of interest that would prevent an objective and impartial evaluation.
4. Decline any invitation to evaluate if the subject matter of the article does not include your academic profile and thematic specialty.
5. Evaluate the quality of the article objectively.
6. Be clear, technical and argue your responses. RIICS and the authors welcome any comments that contribute to improve the publication.
7. Be objective and neutral with your critics, justify your assertions and be constructive with your comments, showing respect for the research and the authors. RIICS asks its peers to avoid disrespectful, personal and unnecessary comments.
8. Avoid demanding from the authors that go beyond the limits and objectives of the research.
9. Report to the Editor when you find coincidences between the article you are reviewing and any work previously published or in the process of reviewing.
10. Check for plagiarism and/or self-plagiarism in the work.
11. Report to the Editor in case there are suspicions or reasonable doubts regarding the veracity, manipulation of data or bias in the research.
12. Review the sources of information consulted in the article and suggest modifications if necessary.
13. Deliver the requested evaluations on time, or contact the Editor in advance to anticipate delays.
Conflict of Interest
A conflict of interest may occur when the peer reviewer cannot objectively and impartially evaluate an article. This situation may be caused by any of the following situations:
1. When the peer reviewer has a personal, family, professional or business relationship with the author.
2. When the peer reviewer works, has worked and/or published with the author.
3. When the peer reviewer will be working with the author on a similar project or research proposal.
4. When the peer reviewer is working on a similar topic or has previously published about it.
The peer reviewers must report to the Editor, in the invitation or in the evaluation process, any conflict of interest.
Processes and times in the evaluation
When an article complies with the journal's policies, the search for peer reviewers begins. The evaluation times may vary, on average, it takes between four and six weeks: one week to choose the peer reviewers, one week to check availability, from three to four weeks to evaluate. In the invitation, the peer reviewer is informed of the title, summary and the time expected by RIICS to have the evaluation concept ready. If the peer reviewer declines, the recommendation of some peers who can evaluate the work will be requested; if the peer accepts, the manuscript, the guidelines and the evaluation format will be sent. This entire process is managed through the Open Journal Systems (OJS). When the evaluator is unable to comply with the proposed date for issuing his or her concept due to situations beyond his or her control, the Editor expects a prior notification to the deadline in order to agree on new deadlines.
The concept issued by the peer reviewer must be clear and properly argued, in order to the Editor, the Editorial Committee and the authors do not have concerns, confusion or have to rely on interpretation and inference to know what was meant. The peer reviewer is a key element in the process and decision making, therefore, the Editor will be accompanied by him/her, after the evaluation, to resolve doubts, review adjustments or any other need related to the process. Once the peer reviewer's opinion has been issued, the Editor will proceed with the certification of the evaluation process.