PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Academic review

The articles must favorably accredit the process of academic review, which works under a modality of quadruple blind peer review, where the identity of both the authors and reviewers will remain anonymous:

  1. The articles that accredit editorial review will be sent to academic experts in the same discipline and topic as the submitted text; they will produce comments about the relevance and academic quality of the submitted text and will decide on the feasibility of publishing the text in question.
  2. The reviewers will be in charge of revising and analyzing the academic, theoretical and methodologic relevance of each and every article assigned to them. They will be responsible for verifying the explicit presence of the theoretical-methodological section, consistency between academic output and the findings’ relevance, as well as the up-to-dateness and relevance of the bibliography resorted to.
  3. All the texts will be sent to at least four experts, ascribed to institutions other than the text’s author(s); they will comment on the text. Finally, on the basis of their recommendations, the decision of the editorial board of Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas will be:
  4. Recommend its publication without modifications.
  5. Recommend its publication with minor changes and which do not make a second peer review necessary.
  6. Condition its publication on making major changes, which makes a new peer review necessary. This process can be repeated up to two rounds, if upon reaching this point the document is not recommended for publication yet, the article will be rejected without option to resend it.
  7. Not recommend its publication.
  • For a text to be approved for publication it is indispensable that at least three of the four reviewers’ rulings are positive.
  • The editorial board will ensure, in all cases, that the rulings delivered to the authors contain sound arguments to support the editorial decision.
  • The results of the academic review process will be unappealable in all cases.
  • If observations are received, the author(s) will have a 10-working-day deadline to send the new version of the work to the editor. Failing to meet this deadline will mean the automatic disqualification of the document.
  • The time for the document to be sent to review will be in function of the number of articles in waiting list. The referees, once receiving the article, will have six weeks to carry out the review and deliver their ruling.
  • The accepted documents will start the edition process (proofreading, metadata marking up, layout and typesetting) to later be included in the corresponding fascicle, according to the decision of the editorial board, which is
  1. a) Recommend its publication without modifications.
  2. b) Recommend its publication with minor changes and which do not make a second peer review necessary.
  3. c) Condition its publication on making major changes, which makes a new peer review necessary. This process can be repeated up to two rounds, if upon reaching this point the document is not recommended for publication yet, the article will be rejected without option to resend it.
  4. d) Not recommend its publication.
  • Once the editorial process concludes (proofreading, metadata marking up, layout and typesetting), the formatted article will be sent to the corresponding author for their approval, after this no changes at all will be accepted. The journal does not sent galley proofs.