About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Quipukamayoc is an open access journal, publishes unpublished and original research articles, refereed by under double-blind peer review, on the following topics: Accounting, Economy and Finance. Its objective is to contribute to the development and advancement of knowledge in accounting, economic and business disciplines (more).

The Quipukamayoc journal was founded in 1993 and is edited by Facultad de Ciencias Contables of Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos (UNMSM). The contents of Quipukamayoc shows the interest and commitment of the Facultad de Ciencias Contables to make visible and increase the investigation quality. In this sense, the journal aims is to be a communication channel for academic scientific research that allows the visibility of research results and to contribute to the knowledge of accounting, economic and business issues in the educational and research field and contribute to the understanding and solution of problems of society in a cultural and social context. From this perspective, Quipukamayoc look for that readers find in its contents an important source of consultation and reference in their academic work, which contributes to the study and debate of the topics that our collaborators contribute to each publication.

Peer review

Article reception

Quipukamayoc magazine receives manuscripts, 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 These must be unpublished and have not been published in other journals or theses, partially or totally.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the editorial process), as well as the sworn statement (signed by each author) that supports that it is an original and unpublished writing, that is not in the process of publication in another journal, and that there is no conflict of interest, due to financial or material support.

The author must send their article, complying with all the guidelines, along with its mandatory documentation, through the virtual platform of the Quipukamayoc magazine.

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.

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 magazine.

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 10% of the total number of citations consulted by the author, including their own works (self-plagiarism).
  • 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):
    1. The author must indicate their institutional affiliation and ORCID code.
    2. 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.
    3. The article must be written taking into account Rules on citations and references established in the journal platform.
  • - Regarding the substance of the article (minimum requirements):
    1. The subject of the article must be related to the research lines of the journal.
    2. The article must be unpublished and the product of an investigation according to the categories indicated in the section Submissions.
  • Notification to the author, by report, of preliminary observations, if any.
  • Report of acquittal to the observations by the author within a period not exceeding seven days.
  • Review of acquittal and decision-making by the editorial team.
  • Communication to the author about the decision.

Rejection during preliminary review

The work will be rejected in the following situations:

  1. 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.
  2. If the article is not unpublished or lacks originality, that is, if a percentage greater than 10% of textual similarities obtained with the Turnitin software is observed in the article.
  3. If the article does not meet the formal requirements.

Once the final decision has been communicated to the author, it is irrevocable.

Peer reviewed article

Once the preliminary review of the article has been concluded in a “satisfactory” manner, the review process by the peer reviewers (double blind) begins.

The peer review is carried out by two specialists on the subject. Reviewers, anonymously, evaluate the manuscript within a period of no more than fifteen days, and must send their report to the editorial team if the article meets quality standards.

After receiving the suggestions and recommendations, they will be sent to the author to modify their work, having a period of fifteen days to do what is requested. 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).

The peer review process consists of the following stages:

  1. Identification and appointment of peer peer reviewers
  2. Arbitration
  3. Issuance of the first expert peer review report (results)
  4. Rising observations
  5. New consultation with peer reviewers
  6. Issuance of the second peer review report, as appropriate

Identification and appointment of peer reviewers

The editorial team identifies at least two peer reviewers within three days, according to their respective specialties. The criteria for identification is as follows:

  1. Reviewers must have experience and publications on the subject of the article to be examined.
  2. Reviewers must be external to the institution.
  3. Reviewers must have no personal or professional ties to the author.
  4. 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, and ethical standards. In addition, the certification is required to be granted once the article is published. Finally, the article evaluation form will be attached, in which the items to be taken into account are detailed.

If the reviewers accept the invitation, the editorial team sends the article to be reviewed, a manuscript that will be anonymous.

Peer review arbitration

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, you must notify the editorial team.

The maximum term for issuing the report is ten days.

Depending on the circumstances that merit the case, the general editor may request the expert reviewers to pronounce themselves in a shorter period of time.

Peer review results

The evaluation of the reviewers will be reflected in the review format. The reviewers will issue suggestions or recommendations to improve the articles, considering the following:

  1. Publishable without modifications.
  2. Publishable taking into account minor observations.
  3. Publishable, if the major observations are resolved.
  4. Publishable, if minor and major observations are resolved.
  5. Non-publishable, does not qualify for publication.

The peer reviewers will justify their decision, detailing the observations they make and supporting them in the corresponding analysis. Without containing subjective judgments.

If the reports of the peer reviewers 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 a peer reviewer.

Report submission by peer reviewers

The journal's editorial team prepares the final peer review report, considering the two reports from the external reviewers, without revealing their identity, within a period of no more than seven days.

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 can coordinate it with the editor of the magazine, 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:

  1. Minor observations, maximum period of seven days
  2. Major observations, maximum period of fifteen days
  3. Major and minor observations, maximum period of twenty days

If the author does not meet the established deadlines, it will be understood that they desisted from the publication process.

New consultation with 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.

Issuance of the second report by the peer reviewers

Based on the reports of the newly consulted external reviewers, the editorial team will decide if the article meets all the requirements to be published.

If there are differences between the reviewers regarding the authors' corrections, the editorial team will make the final decision.

The editorial team will inform the author of the final publication decision. 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.

The editorial team reserves the right to establish the articles publication position in the journal.

Frequency

The Quipukamayoc magazine is published every four months.

The first publication of the year takes place in March; the second in July; and the third in November.

Open Access Policy

Quipukamayoc provides free and immediate access to its contents under the principle of making research freely available to the public, which fosters a greater exchange of global knowledge.

The journal adheres to the open access principles and policies established in Budapest (2002) (BOAI 10), Berlin (2003) and Bethesda (2003) and grants readers the free, irrevocable and worldwide right to access information, as well as to download, print, share or link the full text of any of the articles in any of the published numbers, provided that they are duly cited and taking into consideration the copyright, established in Legislative Decree No. 822, Law on Copyright.

The magazine uses the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) for the distribution of the articles.

Payment for publication

Quipukamayoc does not charge for shipping, neither in the editorial process nor publication.

Ethics

Quipukamayoc understands the importance and responsibility of the publication of scientific research articles. The works received go through a process that involves the authors, editors and copy editors. Quipukamayoc ensures that the articles’ information is accurate and reliable, as well as the protection of the rights of those involved, the good behavior and procedures.

For this, Quipukamayoc is guided by the standards and codes of ethics of  Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and from International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME), así como de la declaración de los Principios de transparencia y buenas prácticas en la publicación académica. as well as the Principles of transparency and good practices in academic publication. Additionally, the magazine goes by the Peruvian norms related to scientific research, such as legal regulations on copyright, open access and others related to the topics of our journal.

Plagiarism and misconduct

Quipukamayoc considers plagiarism as a fraud in publication, which is defined as the appropriation of the ideas, processes, results or words of another person without giving the corresponding credit. Fraud and misconduct also mean manufacturing (invention of data or results) and falsification (manipulation of research materials, equipment, processes to alter data or results, as well as the change or omission of data or results).

Quipukamayoc does not tolerate plagiarism, fraud, or misconduct, so it establishes mechanisms to prevent and remedy it. As it follows:

(a) During the editorial process, Quipukamayoc avoids the publication of works that contain plagiarism, fraud and misconduct by using peer reviewers and the revision of writing through the Turnitin platform Turnitin.

(b) After the article’s publication, if Quipukamayoc detects or is alerted and confirms cases of plagiarism, fraud or misconduct, it proceeds according to the guidelines and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE- http://publicationethics.org/) and the magazine can execute the retraction of the article.