Peer-review system

Peer Review and Editorial Procedure
Reviewer Profile and Responsibilities
General Guidelines for Reviewers

Peer Review and Editorial Procedure

Peer review is the central pillar for ensuring the academic and scientific quality of the articles published by Cátedra Villarreal Posgrado. All manuscripts received are subjected to an exhaustive evaluation process carried out by specialists in the field.

Upon receipt of the document through the journal’s platform, the Editor-in-Chief performs an initial technical review. If the manuscript meets the minimum criteria established at this stage, the Editorial Team coordinates its assignment to a peer reviewer who is an expert in the corresponding subject area.

Reviewers issue a recommendation according to the following categories:

  • Publishable without modifications
  • Publishable, considering minor revisions
  • Publishable, if major revisions are addressed
  • Publishable, if both minor and major revisions are addressed
  • Not publishable, for failing to meet essential requirements

Manuscripts rated as publishable without modifications are included in the immediate issue of the journal; if revisions are required, they will be scheduled for the next issue. When comments are provided, the manuscript will be returned to the author for the corresponding corrections. Authors must address all recommendations prior to the final decision, which is issued by an academic editor (Editor-in-Chief, a member of the Editorial Board, or a Guest Editor). Accepted articles subsequently undergo a formal editing process.

The Editorial Board of Cátedra Villarreal Posgrado reserves the right to accept or reject manuscripts for publication, as well as to introduce stylistic modifications or to shorten texts that exceed the permitted length, while committing to respect the original content with prior authorization from the authors.

Reviewer Profile and Responsibilities

The reviewer’s role is fundamental to safeguarding the integrity of the academic record and ensuring the scientific rigor of published articles. Their work must be conducted ethically, objectively and in a timely manner, in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers must meet the following requirements:

  • Have no conflicts of interest with the authors.
  • Not have published in co-authorship with the authors in the last three years.
  • Hold a doctoral degree.
  • Possess proven experience in the evaluated area (verified via Scopus, ORCID or other sources).
  • Have an official and current academic affiliation.

The journal requires a critical and detailed assessment, as well as a professional and collaborative attitude throughout the process.

General Guidelines for Reviewers

1. Invitation to Review

All manuscripts are evaluated by expert reviewers. Upon receiving an invitation, reviewers are requested to:

  • Accept or decline the invitation promptly after reviewing the title and abstract.
  • Suggest alternative reviewers if they are unable to participate.
  • Request an extension in a timely manner if additional time is needed to complete a full report.

2. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any situation that may compromise their impartiality. Possible conflicts include:

  • Having collaborated, published, or shared funding with the authors in the last three years.
  • Maintaining close personal relationships, rivalries or conflicts with any of the authors.
  • Deriving financial gain or loss from the publication.
  • Having non-financial conflicts of an ideological, political, religious or academic nature.

If there is any doubt about the existence of a conflict, the reviewer must inform the Editorial Team. Evaluating a manuscript previously reviewed for another journal does not constitute a conflict of interest; in such cases, the reviewer may indicate whether the new version shows improvements compared to the previous one.

Reviewers are also encouraged to consult COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers.

3. Confidentiality Statement

Cátedra Villarreal Posgrado employs a double-blind peer review system. Therefore, until the article is published, reviewers must:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding all manuscript content.
  • Refrain from revealing their identity in comments or in the metadata of submitted files.

If a reviewer wishes to delegate the evaluation to a colleague, they must notify the Editorial Team in advance, ensuring that the designated person meets the criteria established in the reviewer profile.

4. Review Reports

When preparing the report, reviewers should consider the following guidelines:

Reading and analysis:

  • Read the entire manuscript carefully, including figures, tables and supplementary material.
  • Provide a critical analysis of the manuscript as a whole and of its essential components.

Clarity and precision:

  • Provide clear, detailed and specific comments that guide the authors.
  • Maintain a professional and respectful tone; derogatory remarks are not permitted.

Citations and references:

  • Avoid suggesting citations to one’s own work or to that of close colleagues unless indispensable.
  • Do not recommend references with the aim of increasing personal or journal metrics.
  • Propose additional bibliography only when it provides clear added value to the manuscript.

Resources to Support Review Report Writing

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