Peer Review

Initial review

Term: 2 to 3 business days.

 In the Initial Review phase, it is verified:

  • If the manuscript is within the thematic and methodological scope of the journal.
  • If the information about authorship and filiation is complete and reliable.
  • If the document meets the criteria of the journal (Guidelines for authors).
  • If the bibliographic section is of adequate size, it is updated and consists of recognized sources with their respective DOI links.
  • If the article apparently has not been previously published in another journal in Spanish, English or Portuguese.
  • If the manuscript shows evidence of plagiarism.
  • If the manuscript meets the minimum guidelines for writing, spelling and punctuation.
  • If the manuscript is accompanied by the required documentation of Letter of Presentation of Article and Format of Information of Authors.

Manuscripts with evidence of plagiarism, false information from authors or some ethical problem will be immediately rejected.

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 stipulated period. Those manuscripts that are not accompanied by the required documentation (Authors Information Format and Article Submission Letter) will not be approved for entry to the review process until they meet these requirements.

 

Peer Review

Deadlines: 5 to 12 weeks for the review process, depending on the availability of the selected evaluators.

The process of evaluation of articles in MODULO ARQUITECTURA CUC is defined as doubly blind (Double-blind Review), which implies that neither the authors nor the arbitrators will know the identity of their evaluated or evaluators, respectively. This supports the confidentiality of the publication and objectivity in the arbitration process.

The requirements or selection criteria for peer evaluators are the following:

  • Minimum academic training at the master's level in the area of ​​knowledge of the manuscript.

  • Scientific publications the thematic area of ​​the article refereed in the last 2 years.

  • Not belong to the Editorial Committee of MODULO ARQUITECTURA CUC.

  • Not be affiliated with the same institution / organization of the authors of the manuscript.

  • No conflict of interest with the publication or any of its members (authors, editors, committee members or administrative staff)

The selected evaluators will receive an invitation to be part of the review process, by the editorial coordination. This invitation may be accepted or declined; If accepted, the evaluator will have access to the full text and an online form to support the arbitration process. This process will be carried out through the OJS (Open Journal System) platform of the journal.

 

IMPORTANT: The evaluator, upon accepting the Editor's invitation to evaluate the article, declares that it does not incur any conflict of interest and that it will apply the ethical, confidentiality and plagiarism management rules defined by the journal and published in the Ethics section of the journal. Publication.

 

In this process, in addition to the aspects of the subject and area of ​​knowledge of the manuscript, aspects related to the writing of the title, the content and structure of the Abstract and Abstract (structured summary), the chosen keywords, the content and structure of the introduction, the exposed methodology, the level of argumentation, the results obtained, the discussion and conclusions.

 

The review form used can be consulted at the following link: Review Form and must be attached to the OJS platform at the time of the evaluation of the Article.

 

The evaluating pair will present the general observations and recommendations for the improvement of the manuscript and will issue its recommendation taking into account any of the following verdicts:

Publicable: The revised version of the article meets all requirements and is publishable as is.

Publicable with modifications: The manuscript requires a minimum amount of modifications that are easily rectifiable.

Reevaluable: The manuscript requires considerable modifications that require the document to be evaluated again after the author's corrections.

Not publishable: The manuscript is not suitable for publication. Its publication would not bring any value to the area of knowledge. 

In case of a controversy between the evaluators' recommendations, the editor in chief (with the possible collaboration of the editorial committee) will issue the final verdict for the article.

 

Decision of the editor

Person in charge: Editor in chief, Associate Editor or Guest Editor

Deadlines: 1 week to issue publication decision (Editor)

From the moment that the recommendations of at least 2 evaluators are available, the editor will have 1 week to communicate a decision to the author.

 

The Editor in Chief may Accept (Publish), Reject (Not publishable) or request additional revisions to the authors (Publicable with Modifications, Reevaluable). In case the decision of the editor conflicts with the recommendations of the reviewers, this decision must be justified.

The publication decision may be delegated to associated editors or guest editors (if applicable). If an editor has a conflict of interest, he is excluded from the decision.

An email with the Editor's Decision will be sent to the author. This will include a summary of the comments and suggestions of the evaluators, and will include the deadline for the review process by the author.

 Online Tracking: The decision of the editor will be immediately reflected in the status of the manuscript on the shipping platform. In case of receiving a decision of "Not publishable", the article will leave immediately of the process of revision in the magazine and the author will be able to find the details in the section of File.

 

Review by the Author (s)

  • Deadlines:

  • 1 week in case of decision of Publicable

  • 2 weeks in case of decision of Publicable with Modifications

  • 3 to 4 weeks in case of Reevaluable decision

Once the decision of the editor has been issued, the author will have the stipulated deadlines for the review of the comments of the evaluators, the sending of the modifications and the sending of the documentation that is required.

 

Publicable:

 

A publisher's decision will be issued when:

The reviewers' recommendations were positive and the manuscript is Accepted for publication without comments from the reviewers.

The manuscript had minor corrections that were already corrected or successfully passed through a second evaluation round.

The editor will ask the authors to review the manuscript before starting the correction process and will send the copyright assignment format, which must be completed and signed by each of the authors.

 The authors will not be able to make substantial modifications to the content of the accepted manuscript and they should be limited to:

 Verify the information of authors (Names, emails, affiliations, ORCID, biographies) and the Financing section. Most of this information was omitted in the revised version of the manuscript (Double blind process) so the author should make sure to include it again in the final accepted version.

Ensure and improve the quality of graphics and images.

Ensure that each table, graphic and figure has its description with its respective source.

Ensure the sending of the document of Transfer of Copyright, duly completed and signed by each and every one of the authors.

Adjust the citation style to the IEEE standard.

Complete the list of references with the suggestions of the evaluators or editors.

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).

Once the final version of the manuscript is received, a final review is made in search of plagiarism and it is verified that the documentation is complete. The editor will issue a Certificate of Acceptance which will be sent to the authors via email.

 

Publicable with Modifications:

In this case the manuscript requires a minimum amount of modifications that are easily remedied. The authors must respond to each of the evaluators' suggestions within the stipulated period. In the event that the author considers not to comply with any of these recommendations, he must duly justify it.

 Once the modifications have been received, the editor in chief may issue a decision of Publicable or request clarifications or modifications if necessary.

 

Reevaluable:

 

In this case, the manuscript requires considerable modifications that require the document to be evaluated again. The authors must respond to each of the evaluators' suggestions within the stipulated period. In the event that the author considers not to comply with any of these recommendations, he must duly justify it.

 

Once the modifications have been received, the manuscript will be sent to a second round of review, with equal terms and conditions of the first round. The editor may request the collaboration of the participating reviewers in round 1 or select new reviewers.

 

Once the comments of the second round have been received, the editor may issue a decision of "Publicable" if all the corrections have been corrected, "Publicable with modifications" in case minor changes are required or "Not published" in the case of that the article does not meet the criteria of the reviewers and the editor in chief. Items may not receive a "Reevaluable" decision more than once.

 

 

 

Correction, Production and Publication

 

Deadlines: 7 working days for layout and language correction (Maquetador)

2 business days to resolve questions about the language correction process (Authors)

 2 business days for revision of the trial version of the article (Authors)

 1 business day to make modifications (if required) (Maquetador)

 1 business day for online publication of the final version (Editorial Coordinator).

 The accepted articles will be sent to the assigned Maquetador and the process of language correction and layout will begin. The layout designer, through the editorial coordinator, will be able to consult the authors about any questions related to the writing, the context or the composition of figures and tables (the use of technical terms, improvements in the coherence, structure and symbols of formulas, sources or missing citations etc.)

 The author will have a period of 2 working days to respond and resolve the requests of the designer through email.

 A trial version will be sent to the author for review and the author will have 2 working days to indicate and send the modifications that he considers pertinent. The trial version will include the DOI identifier and the assigned page.

 The layout designer will have a period of 1 business day to make the modifications suggested by the author (if required) and the editorial coordinator will be responsible for publishing the final version of the article within 1 to 2 business days.

 The editorial team will inform the author if there are changes in the stipulated terms due to technical or administrative reasons.

 

Correction and retraction

 

Responsible parties: Editors, Authors, Readers

 Deadlines: Facing a complaint, 1 week to apply the protocol

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

 MODULO ARQUITECTURA CUC is an Open Access publication, which allows anyone to consult and verify the full text without any limitation or cost. If you as a reader have any questions about an article, your questions, comments and suggestions will be answered through the email revistamodulo@cuc.edu.co. You can also send a letter to the Editor through the same address.

 

IMPORTANT: The evaluator, when accepting the Editor's invitation to evaluate the article, declares that it does not incur any conflict of interest and that it will apply the ethical, confidentiality and plagiarism management rules defined by the journal and published on the website.