Instructions for peer reviewers

Peer review and editorial process

Peer review is key to ensuring the quality of articles published by Cátedra Villarreal Posgrado. All manuscripts are rigorously evaluated by subject-matter experts.

After submission, the Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial technical screening. If the manuscript proceeds, the Editorial Office coordinates its evaluation by a peer reviewer.

Authors must implement the necessary revisions prior to the final decision, which is made by an academic editor (Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board member, or Guest Editor). Accepted articles are subsequently edited.

Please refer to the peer review system section for more detailed information.

Reviewer profile and responsibilities

The role of the reviewer is essential to ensuring the integrity of the academic record and the scientific quality of the published articles. Reviewers are expected to carry out their evaluations in a timely, ethical, and transparent manner, in line with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers must meet the following criteria:

  • No conflicts of interest with any of the authors.

  • No co-publications with the authors in the past three years.

  • Hold a doctoral degree (Ph.D. or equivalent).

  • Have verified expertise and academic background in the manuscript's subject area (validated via Scopus, ORCID, or equivalent).

  • Have an official and recognized academic affiliation.

Cátedra Villarreal Posgrado is committed to a rigorous peer review process, which requires reviewers to provide a thorough and critical evaluation of each manuscript.

Reviewers who accept the invitation are expected to:

  • Have the necessary expertise to evaluate the manuscript’s scientific quality.

  • Submit clear, objective, and well-supported review reports.

  • Maintain a professional, ethical, and collaborative attitude throughout the review process.

General guidelines for reviewers

Review Invitation

All manuscripts submitted to Cátedra Villarreal Posgrado are assessed by expert reviewers. Their role is to evaluate the scientific quality of the manuscript and recommend whether it should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

Invited reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept or decline the invitation promptly, after reviewing the manuscript’s title and abstract.

  • Suggest alternative reviewers if they decline the invitation.

  • Request an extension in a timely manner if more time is needed to submit a thorough review.

Potential conflicts of interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If uncertain whether a situation constitutes a conflict, they should contact the Editorial Office. Examples include:

  • Having collaborated, published, or shared funding with any of the authors within the past three years.

  • Maintaining close personal relationships, rivalries, or personal disputes with the authors.

  • Having financial interests that could be affected by the manuscript's publication.

  • Holding non-financial conflicts such as political, religious, ideological, academic, or commercial biases.

Reviewers must recuse themselves if their judgment could be biased in favor of or against the manuscript.

Note: Reviewing a manuscript previously evaluated for another journal does not constitute a conflict of interest. In such cases, reviewers may comment on whether the current version shows improvements over the previous one.

Reviewers are also encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Confidentiality statement

Cátedra Villarreal Posgrado follows a double-blind peer review system. Until publication, reviewers must treat all manuscript content, including the abstract, as strictly confidential. They must not disclose their identity to the authors, including within the comments or metadata of submitted files (e.g., Word or PDF).

If a reviewer wishes to delegate the evaluation to a colleague, they must inform the Editorial Office. The designated colleague must meet the criteria stated in the Reviewer Profile section.

Review reports

Below are general guidelines to follow when preparing your report:

Initial considerations:

  • Read the entire manuscript carefully, including supplementary materials if provided. Pay special attention to figures, tables, data, and the methodology used.

  • Your report should provide a critical assessment of the manuscript as a whole, as well as of specific sections and key concepts.

  • Ensure that your observations are clear, detailed, and precise so authors can understand and address them appropriately.

  • Maintain an objective and respectful tone at all times. Comments should be constructive and focused on improving the manuscript. Derogatory remarks will not be accepted.

Citations and references:

  • Avoid suggesting citations to your own work, the work of close colleagues, or to the journal itself unless essential to improving the manuscript.

  • Do not promote self-citation, “honorary citations” (unjustified), or excessive citation of specific articles for the purpose of inflating metrics of the reviewer, authors, or journal.

  • Only recommend additional references if they clearly and substantially enhance the manuscript’s content.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

  • The use of generative AI tools (GenAI) or large language models (LLMs) to write review reports is strictly prohibited.

  • Reviewers are solely responsible for the content of their reports. Using AI may violate confidentiality, privacy, or intellectual property policies.

  • Limited use of AI for editing language (grammar, spelling, structure, punctuation) may be acceptable, but must be explicitly disclosed when submitting the review.

  • Reviewers must not upload any manuscript content, whether in full or in part, nor any images, tables, figures, or related unpublished data to AI platforms. Doing so violates MDPI’s confidentiality policy.

  • Review reports found to have been inappropriately generated using AI will be discarded.

Support resources for writing review reports

For more detailed guidance on how to write a critical review, you may consult the following resources: