EVALUATION STANDARDS

Articles submitted to the Puriq Journal of Scientific Research are selected according to the following procedure: 

Internal evaluation:

• Title of the article in Spanish, English and Portuguese (maximum 15 words).
• Number of words of the abstract (150 to 200 words maximum).
• Number of words of the development of the article (5000 to 6000 words maximum, in which the summary, abstract, captions, tables, figures, and bibliographical references will be counted.
• Manuscript format: DOWNLOAD.
• Keywords (maximum 4), in Spanish, English and Portuguese. The keywords must be compulsory in the UNESCO Thesaurus.
• Author data.  Adopt the CRediT specification system (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) Author data format: DOWNLOAD.
• Quality of images and tables.
• Open science compliance form. Format: DOWNLOAD. When the manuscripts submitted for evaluation have preliminary versions (preprint), the type of review will be differentiated.

Originality assessment

The evaluation is then carried out using anti-plagiarism software, Turnitin, which determines the level of similar and identical elements present in the proposal, which have not been correctly referenced and which constitute plagiarism. This evaluation is independent and rigorous with academic and scientific criteria by the editorial committee. Based on the report generated by the software itself, and if a percentage of similar elements is found within the article, it is suggested to the General Editor to reject the submission. Puriq defines plagiarism as the appropriation, presentation as one's own or use of another's intellectual material, without due acknowledgment of its original source in an explicit manner. 

External evaluation:

External reviewers are invited by the Director and Associate Editors for their extensive knowledge of the subject as researchers. The Editor and Associate Editors ensure that external reviewers must not have any conflict of interest. The selected external reviewers do not receive remuneration, but are given a certification on behalf of Puriq Journal as external reviewers, sent online. The requirements to be an external reviewer of Revista Puriq are: knowledge and mastery of the subject, impartiality, responsibility and professional ethics.

Responsibilities of the reviewers

The reviewers chosen to evaluate and/or give an opinion on the manuscripts should consider the following premises:

• Accept manuscripts that meet the reviewer's academic experience and profile.
• Send the opinions within the deadlines established by the journal.
• To keep the evaluated manuscripts confidential (confidentiality) before and after the process.
• The reviewer should not contact the authors of the manuscript, unless previously authorized by the authors in their application.
• The reviewer's decisions and the opinions issued do not depend on the editors' points of view.

Choice of reviewers

• The convened reviewer will be part of the journal's database, must be specialized in lines of research coinciding with the manuscript and fit the researcher's profile.
• Acceptance or declination of the evaluation of a manuscript must be explicit; declination will not have negative consequences for the reviewer.
• Evaluations are conducted under a double-blind modality (interaction is encouraged during the review process).

Reviewer's opinion

Reviewers must choose one of the options once the manuscript has been evaluated:

• Accept this submission: the manuscript does not need major changes probably only adjustments suggested by the reviewer.
• Publishable with modifications: the manuscript needs major changes suggested by the reviewer.
  Resubmit for revision: the manuscript needs to be revised by the authors according to the reviewer's suggestions.
• Forward to another publication: the manuscript does not comply with the journal's lines of research.
• Not publishable: the manuscript has no possibility of being published and for various academic and/or research reasons does not meet the editorial quality requirements.
• See comments: series of comments or observations on the manuscript for the authors that can be modified.

The reviewer undertakes to make comments addressed to the authors and the editor.

Ethical recommendations

• The reviewer will not give an opinion on the manuscript based on any type of discrimination (racial, political, ideological, religious or cultural).
• The reviewer may not use the data or information obtained from the manuscript for his/her own benefit.
• The reviewer must reserve the confidentiality of the data or information contained in the manuscript.
• The reviewer should not assume the evaluation of a manuscript in the face of possible conflicts of interest.
• Reviewers may not intervene in the evaluation of manuscripts when they are researching or working on a similar topic or are an integral part of the research.
• Reviewers should be constructive and clear in the comments issued in the evaluation.

The policy of transparency in the review

Through this policy, a more transparent review process is sought. Therefore, we encourage authors to allow communications between reviewers and editors about their manuscripts to be added as supplementary material. In addition, we invite authors to share their databases, codes, and any other tools that allow replication of their study as supplementary material. Use of the Open Science Compliance Form is encouraged, DOWNLOAD The manuscript should be sent as a complementary file to the manuscript. In addition, the editors responsible for the articles will place their names on the articles they review. We encourage reviewers the opportunity to place their name as a reviewer of the manuscript (only those who choose to do so).