Peer Review Process

Impartial, independent, and critical evaluation is an intrinsic part of the scientific process and, therefore, must be part of all academic work. Peer review consists of the critical appraisal of manuscripts by experts with similar expertise who are not part of the RIC Editorial Board. Peer review helps editors decide which articles to publish and helps authors, reviewers, and editors improve the quality of published contributions.

Submitted articles undergo either double-blind peer review or open peer review.

The review process takes into account that:

  • The selection of reviewers will be the responsibility of the Editorial Board.
  • The selected reviewers must be external (not from the author's institution).
  • Verify that there are no conflicts of interest.
  • Two specialized reviewers will be designated based on the subject matter of the manuscript.
  • The proposed form (Referee Guidelines) will be used.
  • If the reviewers disagree on their criteria, a third will be designated.
  • The work must be evaluated and its results recorded in the designated space within a period of no more than two months.

The Editorial Board will reconcile the reviewers' suggestions and make a decision, which will be communicated by email to the lead author or research leader. This decision may be:

Acceptance of the submission. In this case, it will be edited as received.

Publishable with modifications. Authors will have 15 days to prepare a new version, taking into account the recommendations of the review process and register it in the same space where the previous version was submitted. Once registered, it will be reviewed again. If the corrected work is not received after 30 days, the Editorial Committee may decide to extend the deadline for another 30 days or archive it, notifying the first author by email. If it is archived and the author(s) maintain their desire to publish in the journal, they must register it as a new manuscript, providing a comment to the editor in the corresponding space in the first step of the registration process, explaining that it is based on a second version of the work whose title is provided.

Re-evaluable. The lead author will be notified by email of the review's considerations and that the work will be archived. They will be informed that if they continue to intend to publish it in the journal, they must register it as a new submission, providing a comment to the editor in the corresponding space in the first step of the registration process, explaining that it corresponds to a new version of the work whose title is stated.

Not Publishable. This refers to articles that have been declared plagiarized, present ethical violations, are of poor quality, or are not considered of interest.

In conjunction with the suggested Referees' Guide, other standardized evaluation guides in international use can also be used by both authors and reviewers, such as: CONSORT (for randomized clinical trials), PRISMA (for systematic reviews), STROBE (for observational studies), CARE (for case reports), and SQUIRE (standards for excellence in reporting quality).

Other guides available in several languages ​​at EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research).