Peer Review

Peer review process 

All manuscripts submitted to Económicas CUC for possible publication are subject to preselection, review and selection. Beforehand, the journal clarifies that the receipt of the manuscript does not imply the obligation to publish it. The initial preselection is in charge of the Editor, who accepts or rejects manuscripts based on: compliance with the purpose and scope of the journal; publication and authorship policies; the journal's code of ethics and authors' duties; the journal's plagiarism policy; and the editorial guidelines for authors. Those manuscripts with evidence of plagiarism according to the similarity report, false information of authors and/or data, violation 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 deadline stipulated by the Editor. 

After the pre-selection, the Editor may make an agreement with the Editorial Committee. The Editorial Committee reviews the manuscript according to its academic merits and, in accordance with its expertise, nominates the group of Referees who will receive the article, who under no circumstances should belong to the Editorial Committee of the journal, guaranteeing at all times that the evaluation will be carried out under the double-blind methodology. 

The external Peer Reviewers are selected according to their expertise in the content of the manuscript, their scientific publications in the subject area in the last two years, not having the same institutional affiliation of any of the authors of the manuscript and not presenting conflict of interest based on the content, research results and proposed conclusions. 

If the Peer Reviewer accepts the review, he/she will have two months to evaluate the manuscript, time that may be extended by the Editor if required to ensure the quality of the process and issue a concept based on the duties of the Peer Reviewers established in the ethical policies of the journal; the Peer Reviewer will present his/her general observations and recommendations and will issue a concept that may be: (i) Acceptance of the Article; (ii) Acceptance of the Article with minor adjustments, here the Peer Reviewer requests minor corrections that when made do not require further evaluation; (iii) Acceptance of the Article with minor adjustments, here the Peer Reviewer requests minor corrections that when made do not require further evaluation: (i) Acceptance of the Article; (ii) Acceptance of the Article with minor adjustments, here the Peer Evaluator requests minor corrections that when made do not require further evaluation; (iii) Acceptance of the Article with substantial adjustments, here the Peer Evaluator requests substantial corrections that after being corrected require further evaluation and (iv) Rejection of the Article due to scientific and editorial quality criteria. In the event of controversies arising from the results of the evaluations of the two peers of the same manuscript, these will be initially resolved by the Editorial Committee and the Editor according to the arguments presented by each of them; if a solution is not reached, a third external evaluation will be requested. 

CUC Economics respects the anonymity of both Authors and Peer Reviewers throughout the evaluation process. If the article is approved subject to minor changes or approved subject to major changes, the Editor will send the evaluation(s) to the Corresponding Author via e-mail to make the necessary adjustments based on the recommendations made. After the Editor receives the corrected version of the manuscript subject to major changes, he/she will verify compliance with the recommendations, analyze the authors' reasons for not making a given correction, and send it for review 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 

Responsibility: Editor, Editorial Coordinator 

Result: E-mail sent by the Editor to the Author with the acceptance decision to enter the peer review process, the request for modifications or the rejection decision. 

In the Initial Review phase, the following is checked: 

  1. If the manuscript is in the journal's template, within the thematic and methodological scope of the journal. 
  2. Whether the information on authorship and institutional affiliation is complete and reliable. 
  3. If the document meets the criteria of the journal instructions for Authors. 
  4. If the bibliographic section is of adequate size, is up to date and is composed of recognized sources with their respective DOI links, if no DOI is found, enter a shortened URL link with https://bitly.com. 
  5. If the article has apparently not been previously published in another journal in any language. 
  6. If the manuscript shows evidence of plagiarism. The iThenticate software is used through the similarity report that allows to properly assess the originality of the work. 
  7. If the article has not been simultaneously submitted to other journal(s) 
  8. If the article does not handle redundant text and data without proper citation. 
  9. If the manuscript meets the minimum guidelines for coherence, internal consistency, writing, spelling and proper use of punctuation marks. 
  10. If the manuscript is accompanied by the certification of originality form and author information form 

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

Articles that do not comply with any of the criteria (those not related to plagiarism or ethical problems) will have the opportunity to send a modified version within a period stipulated by the Editor. Manuscripts that are not accompanied by the required documentation: originality certification form and author information form, will not be approved for the review process until these requirements are met. 

Online Follow-up: upon acceptance to enter the peer review process, the status of the article in the journal's platform will change from "Awaiting Assignment" to "Under Review". From this moment on, the author will be able to consult the progress of the process in the "Review" tab. 

The shipping platform assigns a unique identification number to each item. When making any type of inquiry or sending an e-mail, be sure to include the assigned code in the subject line of the message. 

Peer Review - Peer Review 

Responsibility: Editor - Editorial Committee 

The evaluation process of articles in the CUC Economic Journal is defined as double-blind, adopting the definition assumed by ElSevier (Double-blind Review), double-blind Review, which implies that neither the authors nor the referees know the identity of their evaluators or evaluated, respectively. This supports the confidentiality of the publication and objectivity in the refereeing process. 

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

  1. Minimum academic training at master's degree level in the area of knowledge of the manuscript. 
  2. Scientific publications in the subject area of the refereed article in the last two years. 
  3. Not to belong to the Editorial Committee of the CUC Economic Review. 
  4. Not be affiliated with the same institution/organization as the authors of the manuscript. 
  5. No conflict of interest with the publication or any of its members (authors, editors, committee members or administrative staff). 

The reviewers selected by the Editor in Chief in consensus with the Editorial Committee will receive an invitation from the Editorial Coordination to be part of the review process. This invitation may be accepted or declined; if accepted, the reviewer will have access to the full text and to an online form to support the arbitration process, this process will be carried out through the journal's OJS (Open Journal System) platform. 

The reviewer, by accepting the Editor's invitation to review the article, declares that he/she does not incur in any conflict of interest and that he/she will apply the ethical, confidentiality and plagiarism management rules defined by the journal and published on the website, Ethical Rules section. 

In this process, in addition to the aspects related to the subject and area of knowledge of the manuscript, aspects related to the title, the content and structure of the summary and abstract (structured), the relevance of the keywords according to the UNESCO thesauri, the content and structure of the introduction, the methodology, the level of argumentation, the results obtained, the discussion, the conclusions and the quality of the references presented according to the APA norms (Last Edition) will be evaluated. 

The peer reviewer will present general observations and recommendations for the improvement of the manuscript and will issue his/her recommendation considering one of the following verdicts: 

  1. Article Acceptance: The revised version of the article meets all requirements and is publishable as is. 
  2. Acceptance of the article with minor adjustments: here the peer reviewer requests minor corrections that do not require further evaluation. 
  3. Acceptance of the article with substantial adjustments: here the peer reviewer requests substantial corrections that after being corrected require a new evaluation. 
  4. Rejection of the article: based on scientific and editorial quality criteria. 

In the event of controversies arising from the results of the two peer reviews of the same manuscript, these will be initially resolved by the Editor, who may consult the Editorial Committee, according to the arguments presented by each of them; if no solution is reached, a third external review will be requested. 

The Editor-in-Chief will issue a certificate of participation to the reviewers of the issue, which will be sent to the reviewer by e-mail within a period not exceeding one month. 

Editor's Decision 

Responsible: Editor and/or Editor-in-Chief 

Once the recommendations of at least 2 reviewers have been received, the Editor may communicate a decision to the Author or decide to carry out a new round of review. 

The Editor and/or Editor-in-Chief may Accept (Publishable), Reject (Not publishable) or request additional revisions to the authors (Publishable with Modifications, Reevaluable). In case the Editor's decision conflicts with the recommendations of the Reviewers, this decision must be justified. 

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

An e-mail with the Editor's Decision will be sent to the author. This will include a summary of the reviewers' comments and suggestions, and will indicate the deadline for the review process by the author. 

Online Tracking: The Editor's decision will be immediately reflected in the status of the manuscript in the submission platform. In case of receiving a "Not publishable" decision, the article will immediately exit the review process in the journal and the author will be able to find the details in the Archive section. 

 Review by Author(s) - Author Review 

Responsible: Authors 

Deadlines:  

2 weeks in case of Publicable's decision 

4 weeks in case of a decision of Acceptance of the article with minor adjustments 

Up to 8 weeks in case of Article Revision decision with request for substantive adjustments 

Once the Editor's decision has been issued, the Author will have the stipulated deadlines to review the Reviewers' comments, send the new version of the manuscript describing the modifications made, as well as to send the documentation required by the journal. If after a maximum period of two months, the journal does not receive from the Authors the adjustments required by the Reviewers, the journal will reject the work. If the authors consider it necessary, they may adjust the article that has been rejected and submit it again to the journal, for which they will have to initiate another editorial process. 

Publishable: 

A decision of publishable will be issued when: 

  1. The reviewers' recommendations were positive and the manuscript is Accepted for publication without reviewer comments. 
  2. The manuscript had minor corrections that were either corrected or successfully passed through a second round of evaluation. 

The Editor will ask the Authors to review the manuscript before starting the correction process and will send the  AUTHOR'S COPYRIGHTS AGREEMENT form, which must be filled out and signed by each of the authors. 

Authors may not make substantial modifications to the content of the accepted manuscript and should be limited to: 

  1. Verify the authors' information (names, e-mails, 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 should be sure to include it again in the final accepted version. 
  2. Ensure and improve the quality of graphics and images. 
  3. Adjust the citation style to the APA standard (latest version). 
  4. Complete the list of references with the suggestions of the reviewers or editors and adjust to APA standards (latest version). 
  5. Complete and check the data of each of the sources in the list of references (Authors, abbreviated titles, number of pages and include DOI links at the end of each reference, all in correspondence with the requirements of the latest version of the APA norms). 
  6. Ensure that each table, graph and figure has its respective source in its description. 
  7. Ensure the sending of the document in the form of  AUTHOR'S COPYRIGHTS AGREEMENT, duly completed and signed by each and every one of the authors. 

Once the final version of the manuscript is received, a final review is performed with the anti-plagiarism software and the completeness of the documentation is verified. The Editor will issue a Certificate of Acceptance which will be sent to the authors via e-mail. The Editor is responsible for deciding in which volume of the journal the article approved by the peer reviewers will be published.  

Online Follow-up: When the decision of "Publishable" is issued, the status of the article in the journal's platform will change to "In edition". The author will be able to consult the progress of the process in the "Editing" tab. 

Decision: Acceptance of the article with minor adjustments. 

In this case the manuscript requires a minimum amount of modifications that are easily correctable. Authors should respond to each of the reviewers' suggestions within the stipulated period. In the event that the Author considers not complying with any of these recommendations, he/she should duly justify it. 

Upon receipt of the modifications, the Editor-in-Chief may issue a decision of Publishable or request clarifications or modifications if necessary. 

Decision: Acceptance of the Article with substantial adjustments: 

In this case, the manuscript requires considerable modifications that merit that the document be re-evaluated. Authors should respond to each of the reviewers' suggestions within the stipulated period. In the event that the Author considers not complying with any of these recommendations, he/she should duly justify it. 

Once the modifications have been received, the manuscript will be sent for a second round of review, with the same deadlines and conditions of the first round. The Editor may request the collaboration of the reviewers who participated in round one or select new reviewers. 

Once the second round comments have been received, the Editor may issue a decision of "Accept article" if all corrections have been corrected, "Accept article with minor adjustments" if minor changes are required, or "Rejected" if the article does not meet the criteria of the Reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief. Articles may not receive a decision of "Article Revision with Substantive Adjustment Request" more than once. 

Proofreading, Production and Publishing 

Responsibility: Authors, Editor, Editorial Coordinator, Assigned Layout Designer 

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

The Author will have a period of one week in working days to respond and resolve the requests of the Layout Designer via e-mail. 

A test version will be sent to the Author for review and he/she will have one working week to indicate and send the modifications that he/she considers pertinent. The test version will include the DOI identifier and the assigned pagination. 

The Layout Designer will have a period of three working weeks to make the modifications suggested by the Author (if required) and the Editor will be in charge of publishing the final version of the article. 

The journal does not guarantee short evaluation times since the criteria will be to guarantee the comprehensiveness and quality of the scientific evaluation process and the editorial considerations that may arise. 

Correction and retraction 

Responsible Parties: Publisher, Authors, Readers 

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

Communications: Minutes of Meetings, COPE Ethical Protocols, Editor's Decision, Actions derived in accordance with COPE ethical protocol recommendations. 

Económicas CUC is an Open Access publication, which allows anyone to consult and verify the complete text without any limitation or cost. If you as a reader have any questions about an article, your doubts, comments and suggestions will be answered through the e-mail address: revecocuc@cuc.edu.co. You can also send a letter to the Editor through the same address. 

If you detect scientific errors or possible ethical problems, please contact us, to initiate the respective investigation and take immediate action. If the error or ethical misconduct is proven, we will initiate the corresponding correction or retraction process. 

Corrections of major errors after online publication will be published separately in an erratum at the close of each issue of the journal. 

Small errors that do not influence the understanding of the study will be corrected on the online versions within fifteen (15) days of publication of the article. 

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

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

Rejection rate: As of the first half of 2023, the journal has a rejection rate of 88%.