Research Evaluation Policy
The Revista CIE is peer-reviewed by specialists with recognized expertise under a DOUBLE-BLIND system, involving TWO (2) EXTERNAL REVIEWERS FROM OUTSIDE THE INSTITUTION, whose identities are kept strictly confidential.
Submitted manuscripts are received via the official email revistacie@uat.edu.mx. As a first filter, the editorial team verifies compliance with the journal’s publication guidelines, the originality statement signed by the author(s), as well as the rights and collaboration level agreement.
After validation, each submission undergoes a plagiarism detection process using the online system https://app.ithenticate.com/. Based on the plagiarism review results and considering the research topic, the committee selects three (3) external reviewers unaffiliated with the university, ensuring their academic profile aligns with the evaluation requirements. The reviewers are contacted via the official email revistacie@uat.edu.mx where the editor formally invites them to participate in the evaluation process.
Each selected reviewer evaluates submissions based on the following criteria: originality, novelty, relevance, clarity and coherence of the discourse, proper internal organization, quality of the bibliographic references, contributions to the knowledge in the field, proper structure of the abstract (including a brief introduction, objective, methodology, key results, and general conclusion) and key words, as well as the relevance of the title.
Article Submission Process
Registration and Coding: Manuscripts are submitted via email to revistacie@uat.edu.mx, accompanied by a signed originality statement and a copyright transfer agreement from the author(s). Upon receipt, the author is immediately notified to facilitate process tracking. Each submission is assigned a unique code and registered in the editorial management database. A dedicated folder is then created with this code, where the manuscript and author details are stored. Additionally, an anonymous version of the manuscript is generated, which is sent to the reviewers along with the evaluation form. The review and evaluation process is conducted in three stages.
- Evaluation: Editorial Review – Editorial Committee
An internal review or pre-review is conducted within approximately two (2) weeks. During this stage, the manuscript is assessed for scientific relevance, alignment with the journal’s focus areas, and compliance with publication guidelines. Additionally, a plagiarism check is performed using specialized web-based software.
Decision: Acceptance/Rejection: If a manuscript is deemed not relevant or rejected, the author(s) are immediately notified. If accepted, the editorial process continues with the selection of three (3) external reviewers, who receive the blind manuscript for evaluation. Reviewers are given 15 days to respond to the invitation. If they do not reply within this period, they receive up to two (2) reminders. If no response is received, new external reviewers are assigned. Regardless of the outcome, once the manuscript has been peer-reviewed, the final decision is communicated to the author(s).
- Peer Review (Arbitration)
The external review process is conducted over approximately four (4) weeks, involving three (3) national and/or international specialists who evaluate the article under the double-blind review system. These specialists provide observations and issue an arbitration decision based on the following outcomes:
- Publishable without modifications
- Publishable with minor modifications
- Publishable with substantial modifications
- Not publishable (Rejected)
The arbitration process considers the following evaluation criteria: Originality, novelty, relevance, contribution to knowledge, clarity and coherence of discourse, proper internal organization, and abstract structure (brief introduction, objective, methodology, key results, general conclusion, and keywords), relevance of the title, and quality of bibliographic references.
The review format used by reviewers consists of two main parameters: Formal or presentation criteria and Content criteria, which are evaluated on a scale with the following values: E = Excellent, B = Good, R = Regular, D = Deficient.
In the Formal or Presentation Criteria, the following aspects are assessed: 1) Originality, relevance, and appropriate length of the title; 2) Proper abstract structure, including a brief introduction, objective, methodology, key results, general conclusion, and keywords; 3) Clarity and coherence of discourse; 4) Internal consistency of the work; 5) Organization of sections and subsections.
In relation to the Content Criteria, the following aspects are examined: 1) Demonstrated mastery of knowledge; 2) Contribution to knowledge in the field; 3) Scientific rigor; 4) Theoretical and methodological foundation; 5) Relevance and up-to-date nature of cited references; 6) Contribution to future research.
Once the article has been reviewed, the publication decision will be communicated to the corresponding author via email. In case modifications are required (Publishable with minor modifications or Publishable with substantial modifications), the author(s) will have a maximum of 15 days to make the necessary adjustments, submitting a revised version of the manuscript along with a response letter addressing each of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. It is the authors’ responsibility to implement all required modifications. If they disagree with any suggestions, they must justify their position. The editor will decide whether the revised article should be sent back to the same reviewers for final approval.
After receiving the reviewers’ feedback, evaluations, and corrections, the editor and the Editorial Committee will make the final decision regarding: Accepted for Publication or Not Publishable (Rejected), and the final decision will be officially communicated to the author(s).
If the article is Accepted for Publication, the author(s) must submit the following: a) A letter confirming that all required modifications have been incorporated (if applicable); b) The final version of the article; c) A statement to the Editorial Committee specifying each author's contribution to the article; d) Author identification details, including full name, academic background, current affiliation, email, and ORCID ID.
The editor and the Editorial Committee reserve the right to accept or reject articles after the peer review process. If an article is Not Publishable (Rejected), the author(s) will be notified via email, along with the corresponding evaluation report. The acceptance of an article for publication implies the transfer of reproduction and dissemination rights by any means to the Centro de Investigación Educativa de la Facultad de Medicina de Tampico (Educational Research Center of the Faculty of Medicine of Tampico) “Dr. Alberto Romo Caballero”, as the publishing institution of the academic journal.
- Evaluation: Post-Arbitration Version Review
The new version of the article is reviewed to verify the incorporated changes and compliance with editorial guidelines.
Decision: Approve / Return to Authors (for Corrections) Prior to Publication
Although this editorial process may seem simple, it involves various waiting periods at each phase of evaluation. These waiting times determine the publication date of the manuscript in future editions following its submission. Some areas of the journal undergo faster reviews, while others take longer. However, the most important aspect is ensuring that the editorial process is diligently followed to guarantee the publication of high-quality scientific material.
Article Adaptation to the Journal's Publication Format (Editorial Process)
Once the article is accepted and approved, the final editing and layout process begins, taking approximately three (3) weeks, with the support of the Editing and Web Page Team, through the following process: (a) Submission of the accepted material by the editor for publication; (b) Style correction, if required; (c) Submission of the corrected material to the editor for it to be sent to the authors (first edited version review); (d) Submission of the verified material by the authors with suggestions (if any) to the editor, who then forwards it back to the editorial team; (e) Layout and formatting of the material, which is also sent to the authors through the editor (second version review, final proof), DOI assignment; and (f) Publication of the material on the platform.
