Peer review
1. Article reception
Quipukamayoc journal receives manuscripts written in Spanish, English or Portuguese that fit its style and nature. These must be unpublished and have not been published in other journals or theses, partially or totally.
The manuscript must be accompanied by a publication request signed by the corresponding author (author with whom continuous communication will be maintained during the editorial process), as well as the sworn statement (signed by each author) that supports that it is an original and unpublished writing, that is not in the process of publication in another journal, and that there is no conflict of interest, due to financial or material support, and the Open Science Compliance Form.
The author must send their article, complying with all the guidelines, along with its mandatory documentation, through the virtual platform of the Quipukamayoc journal.
If this is the first time you access the platform, you must complete the following registration:
https://revistasinvestigacion.unmsm.edu.pe/index.php/quipu/user/register
In the case of being registered, you must enter to the following link: https://revistasinvestigacion.unmsm.edu.pe/index.php/quipu/login
The corresponding author must make only one submission for each article of their authorship, on which they will receive a receipt of confirmation.
If the author fails to attach the required documents, it will be considered as not submitted.
2. Preliminary review of the article
The Editorial team conducts a preliminary review of the article to verify that it complies with the rules and policies of the Quipukamayoc journal.
The preliminary review of the article consists of the following stages:
- Article reviewed through Turnitin software. The level of formal originality of the article should not exceed 20% of the total number of citations consulted by the author, including their own works (self-quote).
- Review of compliance with requirements demanded in Submissions.
- Review of mandatory requirements in terms of substance and form
- Regarding the shape of the article (minimum requirements):- The author must indicate their institutional affiliation and ORCID code.
- The article must have a title of no more than 20 words, an abstract of maximum 200 words and the keywords in both Spanish and English. In general, follow the guidelines in Submissions.
- The article must be written taking into account Rules on citations and references established in the journal platform.
- The subject of the article must be related to the research lines of the journal.
- The article must be unpublished and the product of an investigation according to the categories indicated in the section Submissions.
Rejection during preliminary review
The work will be rejected in the following situations:
- If any alleged irregularity is observed in the article that could constitute an infringement of the ethical norms on authorship, principles of transparency and good practices in academic publication.
- If the article is not unpublished or lacks originality, that is, if a percentage greater than 20% of textual similarities obtained with the Turnitin software is observed in the article.
- If a collaboration does not correspond to the scientific field in which the journal is published.
- If the background quality is indisputably inferior.
- If the article does not meet the formal requirements.
3. Report sending with preliminary marks to the author
The journal's Editorial team informs the author through a preliminary marks report if the article does not meet the formal requirements mentioned in the Submissions section.
The author must correct the marks, in accordance with the requirements of the Editorial team and within a period that should not exceed seven days.
4. Following the correction of preliminary marks and the Editorial team’s decision
The author must send the acquittal of the preliminary marks to the journals’ email, within seven days.
The Editorial team examines the fulfillment of the marks’ acquittal. If everything is acceptable, the process of evaluation of content and academic merit will continue. If not, and if the acquittal of the preliminary marks is not received within the indicated period, the Editorial team will notify the author of the decision to “reject the article”.
If the marks are partial, the Editorial team will indicate the remaining suggestions to the author, giving a period of two days, if the author does not absolve the marks, the Editorial team will “reject the article”.
5. Article review by external peer reviewers
Once the preliminary review of the article has been concluded in a “satisfactory” manner, the review process begins with peer reviewers external to the institution under the double-blind modality.
The peer review is carried out by two specialists on the subject in the line of research of the manuscript content. Reviewers, anonymously, evaluate the manuscript within a period of no more than fifteen days, and must send their report to the Editorial team, following the articles’ evaluation format.
After receiving the suggestions and recommendations, they will be sent to the author to modify their work, and to do what is requested within the established period, according to the type of observations. Articles that still present observations will not be accepted. To avoid inconveniences in the evaluation, the author must submit a report stating the modifications (section, page and line).
6. Identification and appointment of external peer reviewers
The Editorial team identifies at least two peer reviewers external to the institution within three days, according to their respective specialties. The criteria for identification are as follows:
- Reviewers must have experience and publications on the subject of the article to be examined.
- Reviewers are not part of the Editorial team.
- Reviewers must have no personal or professional ties to the author.
- Reviewers should have no problems or conflicts of interest to evaluate the article.
Once the reviewers have been identified, the Editorial team extends the invitation, referring to the title of the article, summary, ethical and editorial standards. Finally, the article evaluation form will be attached, in which the items to be taken into account for the respective review are detailed.
If the reviewers accept the invitation, the Editorial team sends the article to be reviewed, a manuscript that will be anonymous.
7. Arbitration by external peer reviews
Once the article is received, the reviewers must carry out the commissioned evaluation, keeping the editorial process confidential. If you observe any circumstance that prevents the review from being carried out, you should inform the Editorial team.
The maximum term for issuing the report is fifteen days.
Depending on the circumstances that merit the case, the general editor may request the peer reviewers to pronounce themselves in a shorter period of time.
8. Results of external peer review
The evaluation of the peer reviewers will be reflected in the respective article evaluation form. The reviewers will issue suggestions or recommendations to improve the articles, considering the following:
- Publishable without modifications.
- Publishable taking into account minor observations.
- Publishable, if the major observations are resolved.
- Publishable, if minor and major observations are resolved.
- Non-publishable, does not qualify for publication.
Peer reviewers will justify their decision, detailing the suggestions they make and supporting them in the corresponding analysis, without subjective judgments.
If the peer reviewers' reports differ on non-structural aspects of the article, the general editor makes the decision.
If the reports of the peer reviewers differ on structural aspects of the article, the general editor asks one of the reviewers to make further details or further development of their observations. In case the answers to it do not absolve the difference, the general editor summons an external reviewer to settle the dispute.
9. Submittal of external peer reviewers' report
The journal's Editorial team prepares the final peer review report, considering the two reports from the experts reviewers, without revealing their identity, within a period of no more than seven days.
10. Clearance of observations by authors
The author receives the observations and communicates his acceptance to continue with the corresponding changes.
Thus, the author must send a report detailing the correction, for which the latest version of the article is attached.
If you do not agree with any observation, you may include it in your respective report, in order to safeguard the confidentiality and reserve of the actors in the process.
In case of disagreement, the Editorial team will make the final decision, taking into account the arguments presented.
The deadlines to clear up the observations are:
- Minor observations, maximum period of seven days
- Major observations, maximum period of fifteen days
- Major and minor observations, maximum period of twenty days
The established deadlines are subject to change at the discretion of the Editorial team. If the author does not meet the established deadlines, it will be understood that they desisted from the publication process.
11. New consultation with external peer reviewers
Once the new document is received with the correction of the observations, the Editorial team will forward it to the reviewers, attaching the evidence from the previous review to corroborate whether the author actually complied with correcting the observations.
Reviewers must again issue an opinion within seven days, indicating whether or not the author corrected the observations.
12. Issuance of the second external peer reviewers' report
Based on the reports of the newly consulted peer reviewers, the Editorial team will decide if the article meets all the requirements to be published.
If there are differences between the reviewers on the authors' corrections, the Editorial team will make the final decision. Strictly speaking, if the reports of the peer reviewers differ on non-essential aspects of the manuscript, the Editorial team will make the decision, based on the strongest and best-supported opinion.
If the reports of the peer reviewers differ on essential aspects of the manuscript, the Editorial Team will ask one of the reviewers to make clarifications or further developments. If such a request is not possible, or if the responses to it are not satisfactory, the Editorial Team will convene a peer reviewer to determine the academic merit of the article.
The request for corrections to the authors, at any stage of the evaluation process, in no case means a commitment of publication by Quipukamayoc, since such commitment is only acquired at the moment of sending the corresponding publication message.
Once the final decision to publish the article has been communicated, it is irrevocable; unless it is discovered that the author committed a serious lack of ethics in the article.
Finally, the Editorial team reserves the right to establish the publication position of the articles in the journal.
The following flow diagram summarizes the phases of the editorial process:
