Peer Review

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to LADEE for possible publication undergo preselection, review, and selection. It is important to note that the receipt of a manuscript does not imply an obligation to publish it. The initial preselection is the responsibility of the Editor, who accepts or rejects manuscripts based on the following criteria: compliance with the journal's purpose and scope, publication and authorship policies, the journal's code of ethics and author's responsibilities, the journal's plagiarism policy, and the editorial guidelines for authors. Manuscripts with evidence of plagiarism, as indicated by the similarity report, false author information and/or data, or violations of the code of ethics, will be immediately rejected. Manuscripts that do not comply with the editorial guidelines will have the opportunity to be resubmitted in a modified version within the timeframe specified by the Editor.

After the preselection, the Editor may consult with the Editorial Committee. The Committee reviews the manuscript based on its academic merits and, by their expertise, nominates the group of Referees who will evaluate the article. It is imperative that these Referees are not part of the Journal's Editorial Committee and that the evaluation process follows a double-blind methodology.

External Peer Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the content presented in the manuscript, their scientific publications in the thematic area over the last two years, not having the same institutional affiliation as any of the authors of the manuscript, and not having conflicts of interest related to the content, research results, and proposed conclusions.

If the Peer Reviewer agrees to the review, they will have two months to conduct the manuscript evaluation, a period that can be extended by the Editor if necessary to ensure the quality of the process. They will provide a review based on the ethical guidelines of the journal, including general observations and recommendations, and their final decision could be: (i) Acceptance of the Article; (ii) Acceptance of the Article with Minor Revisions, where the Peer Reviewer requests minor corrections that, when implemented, do not require a new evaluation; (iii) Acceptance of the Article with Substantial Revisions, where the Peer Reviewer requests significant changes that, after being made, will require a new evaluation; and (iv) Rejection of the Article due to scientific and editorial quality criteria. In the event of disputes arising from the evaluations of the two referees for the same manuscript, these will be initially resolved by the Editorial Committee and the Editor based on the arguments presented by each of them. If no resolution is reached, a third external evaluation will be requested.

LADEE respects the anonymity of both the Authors and Peer Reviewers throughout the evaluation process. If the article is approved subject to minor or major changes, the Editor will send the evaluations to the Corresponding Author via email to make the necessary adjustments based on the recommendations. After the Editor receives the corrected version of the manuscript with major changes, they will verify compliance with the recommendations, analyze the authors' reasons for not making certain corrections, and send it back to the same peer reviewer for final approval.

The entire editorial process of preselection, review, and selection of each article has an average duration of six months.

The detailed process is described below:

Initial Review - Pre-Check

Responsibilities: Editor, Editorial Coordinator

Result: Email sent by the Editor to the Author with the decision of acceptance for entry into the peer review process, a request for revisions, or a rejection decision.

In the Initial Review phase, the following is verified:

1. If the manuscript is in line with the journal's template and within the thematic and methodological scope of the journal.
2. If authorship and institutional affiliation information is complete and reliable.
3. If the document complies with the journal's author guidelines.
4. If the bibliography section is of an appropriate size, up to date, and composed of recognized sources with their respective DOI links. If DOI links are not available, shortened URL links using https://bitly.com should be included.
5. If the article has not been previously published in any language in another journal.
6. If the manuscript shows evidence of plagiarism. The iThenticate software is used through the similarity report to adequately assess the originality of the work.
7. If the article has not been submitted simultaneously to another journal(s).
8. If the article does not contain redundant information of text and data without proper citation.
9. If the manuscript complies with the minimum guidelines for coherence, internal consistency, writing, spelling, and appropriate use of punctuation marks.
10. If the manuscript is accompanied by the originality certification format and author information format.

Manuscripts with evidence of plagiarism, false author information, or any ethical violation or evidence of misconduct will be permanently and immediately rejected, and the journal will not accept future submissions from these authors.

Articles that fail to meet any of the criteria (excluding plagiarism or ethical issues) will have the opportunity to submit a modified version within a timeframe specified by the Editor. Manuscripts that are not accompanied by the required documentation, including the originality certification format and author information format, will not be approved for the peer review process until these requirements are met.

Online Monitoring: When accepted to enter the peer review process, the article's status in the journal's platform changes from "Awaiting Assignment" to "Under Review." From this point, the author can track the progress of the process under the "Review" tab. The submission platform assigns a unique identification number to each article. When making inquiries or submissions via email, be sure to include the assigned code in the subject line.

Peer Review

Those Responsible: Editor – Editorial Committee

The article evaluation process at LADEE Journal is defined as a double-blind review, which means that neither the authors nor the referees are aware of the identity of each other. This supports the confidentiality of the publication and objectivity in the peer review process.

The requirements or criteria for selecting peer reviewers are as follows:

1. Minimum academic qualifications at the master's level in the manuscript's field of knowledge.
2. Scientific publications in the thematic area of the peer-reviewed article in the last two years.
3. Not being a part of the Editorial Committee of LADEE Journal.
4. Not being affiliated with the same institution/organization as the authors of the manuscript.
5. Not having conflicts of interest with the publication or any of its members (authors, editors, committee members, or administrative staff).

Reviewers selected by the Editor in Chief in consensus with the Editorial Committee will receive an invitation to participate in the review process from the Editorial Coordination. This invitation can be accepted or declined. If accepted, the reviewer will have access to the full text and an online form to support the peer review process. This process will be conducted through the journal's OJS (Open Journal System) platform.

By accepting the Editor's invitation to review the article, the reviewer declares that they do not have any conflicts of interest and will adhere to the ethical guidelines, confidentiality, and plagiarism management rules defined by the journal and published on the website in the ethics section.

In this process, in addition to the aspects related to the subject and the manuscript's field of knowledge, the following aspects will be evaluated: the title's wording, the content and structure of the summary and structured abstract, the relevance of the keywords by UNESCO thesauri, the content and structure of the introduction, the presented methodology, the level of argumentation, the obtained results, the discussion, the conclusions, and the quality of the references presented by the latest APA guidelines.

The peer reviewer will provide general observations and recommendations for manuscript improvement and will issue a recommendation based on one of the following verdicts:

- Acceptance of the Article: The revised version of the article meets all requirements and is publishable as is.

- Acceptance of the Article with Minor Revisions: Here, the peer reviewer requests minor corrections that, once made, do not require a new evaluation.

- Acceptance of the Article with Substantial Revisions: Here, the peer reviewer requests substantial changes that, after being made, will require a new evaluation.

- Rejection of the Article: Due to scientific and editorial quality criteria.

In the event of disputes arising from the evaluations of the two referees for the same manuscript, these will be initially resolved by the Editor, who may consult with the Editorial Committee, based on the arguments presented by each of them. If no resolution is reached, a third external evaluation will be requested.

The Editor in Chief will issue a certificate of participation to the reviewers of the number, and this will be sent to the reviewer via email within one month.

Editor's Decision

Those Responsible: Editor and/or Editor-in-Chief

From the moment the recommendations of at least 2 reviewers are available, the Editor can communicate a decision to the Author or decide to conduct a new round of evaluation.

 

The Editor and/or Editor in Chief may Accept (Publishable), Reject (Not Publishable), or request additional revisions from the authors (Publishable with Modifications, Re-evaluable). If the Editor's decision conflicts with the Reviewers' recommendations, this decision must be justified.

The publication decision may be delegated to Editors (if applicable). If an Editor has a conflict of interest, they are excluded from the decision.

An email with the Editor's Decision will be sent to the author. It will include a summary of the reviewers' comments and suggestions and indicate the deadline for the author's review process.

Online Monitoring: The Editor's decision will be immediately reflected in the manuscript's status in the submission platform. In the case of receiving a "Not Publishable" decision, the article will be immediately removed from the journal's review process, and the author can find details in the Archive section.

Author's Review

Those Responsible: Authors

Deadlines:

- 2 weeks in the case of a "Publishable" decision.

- 4 weeks in the case of an "Acceptance of the article with minor revisions" decision.

- Up to 8 weeks in the case of a "New Article Review with substantial adjustment requests" decision.

Once the Editor's decision has been issued, the Author will have the stipulated deadlines to review the Evaluators' comments, submit a new version of the manuscript describing the modifications made, and also provide the required documentation to the journal. If, within a maximum of two months, the journal does not receive the required adjustments from the Authors, the journal will reject the work. If the authors wish, they can revise the rejected article and resubmit it to the journal, for which they will need to initiate another editorial process.

Publishable:

A decision of "publishable" will be issued when:

1. The reviewers' recommendations were positive, and the manuscript was accepted for publication without any reviewer comments.
2. The manuscript had minor corrections that have already been addressed, or it has successfully passed a second round of evaluation.

The Editor will request the Authors to review the manuscript before commencing the correction process and will send the copyright transfer form, which must be completed and signed by each of the authors.

Authors cannot make substantial modifications to the accepted manuscript and should limit their changes to:

- Verifying author information (names, email addresses, affiliations, ORCID, biographical data), and the funding section. Most of this information was omitted in the revised version of the manuscript (double-blind process), so the author must ensure it is included again in the final accepted version.

- Ensuring and improving the quality of graphics and images.

- Adjusting the citation style to the latest APA guidelines.

- Completing the list of references based on the suggestions from the reviewers or editors and adjusting it to the latest APA guidelines.

- Completing and verifying the details of each source in the reference list (authors, abbreviated titles, page numbers, and including DOI links at the end of each reference, all by the requirements of the latest APA guidelines).

- Ensuring that each table, graph, and figure has its respective source mentioned in the description.

- Ensuring the submission of the copyright transfer form, duly completed and signed by all authors.

Once the final version of the manuscript is received, a final check is performed using plagiarism detection software, and the completeness of documentation is verified. The Editor will issue an "Acceptance Certificate," which will be sent to the authors via email. The Editor is responsible for deciding in which volume of the journal the article approved by the peer reviewers will be published.

Online Monitoring: When the "Publishable" decision is issued, the status of the article on the journal's platform will change to "In Editing." The author can track the progress of the process in the "Editing" tab.

Decision: Acceptance of the article with minor revisions.

In this case, the manuscript requires only a minimal amount of easily addressable modifications. The Authors are expected to respond to each of the reviewers' suggestions within the stipulated timeframe. If the Author chooses not to follow any of these recommendations, they must provide a proper justification.

Once the revisions are received, the Editor in Chief can issue a "Publishable" decision or request further clarification or modifications if necessary.

Decision: Acceptance of the article with substantial revisions:

In this case, the manuscript requires considerable modifications that warrant a reevaluation. The Authors are expected to respond to each of the reviewers' suggestions within the stipulated timeframe. If the Author chooses not to follow any of these recommendations, they must provide a proper justification.

Once the revisions are received, the manuscript will be directed to a second round of review, with the same deadlines and conditions as the first round. The Editor can request the collaboration of the reviewers who participated in the first round or select new reviewers.

Upon receiving the comments from the second round, the Editor can issue an "Acceptance of the article" decision if all the corrections have been addressed, "Acceptance of the article with minor revisions" if minor changes are still required, or "Rejected" if the article does not meet the criteria of the Reviewers and the Editor in Chief. Articles cannot receive a "New Article Review with Substantive Adjustments" decision more than once.

Correction, Production, and Publication

Those Responsible: Authors, Editor, Editorial Coordinator, Assigned Layout Designer

Accepted articles will be sent to the assigned Layout Designer, and the language correction and layout process will begin. The Layout Designer, through the Editorial Coordinator, may consult with the authors on any questions related to wording, context, or the composition of figures and tables (use of technical terms, improvements in coherence, structure, and formula symbols, missing sources or citations, etc.).

The Author will have one week of business days to respond and address the Layout Designer's requests via email.

A proof version will be sent to the Author for their review, and they will have one business week to make any relevant comments and send the necessary modifications. The proof version will include the DOI identifier and assigned pagination.

The Layout Designer will have three business weeks to make the changes suggested by the Author (if required), and the Editor will be responsible for publishing the final version of the article.

The journal does not guarantee short evaluation times, as the criteria will be to ensure the completeness and quality of the scientific evaluation process and any necessary editorial considerations.

Correction and Retraction

Those Responsible: Editor, Authors, Readers

Deadlines: In response to a complaint, one month to apply the protocol.

Communications: Minutes of Meetings, COPE Ethical Protocols, Editor's Decision, and Actions derived from the COPE ethical protocol recommendations.

LADEE is an Open Access publication, which allows anyone to access and verify the full text without any limitations or costs. If you, as a reader, have any questions about an article, your doubts, comments, and suggestions will be addressed via email: revecocuc@cuc.edu.co. You can also send a letter to the Editor at the same address.

If you detect scientific errors or potential ethical issues, please contact us to initiate the respective investigation and take immediate action. In the case of confirming the error or ethical breach, the corresponding correction or retraction process will be initiated.

Significant errors found after online publication will be published separately in a document as an erratum at the end of each journal issue.

Retractions are published when authors, readers, or editors discover significant errors in the published article, whether they are inadvertent errors or the result of improper scientific conduct.

In cases of retraction, the Editor and Editorial Coordinator will study the document and the specific case and will contact the Authors and Reviewers before making the final retraction decision. For this purpose, the protocols and recommendations defined by COPE will be used to identify improper conduct or malpractice.

Rejection Rate: As of the first semester of 2023, the journal has an 88% rejection rate. Una decisión de publicable se emitirá cuando: