Evaluation Methodology

The review process implemented by El Capacho Scientific Journal follows a structured and rigorous methodology that guarantees impartial and exhaustive evaluation of all received academic contributions. This process begins with preliminary editorial evaluation, a stage in which the editorial team conducts an initial review of the manuscript to verify compliance with presentation standards, thematic relevance to the journal's scope, and the general quality of scientific content. During this preliminary phase, adherence to author guidelines, completeness of required information, apparent originality of the work, and relevance to the science and technology disciplines that constitute the editorial focus of the publication are evaluated. Those manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements or present fundamental deficiencies that prevent appropriate academic evaluation will be returned to authors with specific observations before proceeding to the peer review stage.

Double-blind peer review constitutes the core of the academic evaluation process, ensuring objectivity and scientific rigor through a system in which both the identity of authors and reviewers remain hidden throughout the evaluation process. The editorial team carefully selects recognized specialists in corresponding thematic areas, prioritizing reviewers with demonstrated experience in research, relevant publications in the field, and absence of conflicts of interest with authors or manuscript content. Each manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers, who receive detailed instructions about evaluation criteria and expected quality standards. This double anonymity process protects both authors and reviewers from possible biases, allowing evaluations based exclusively on the academic and scientific merit of the presented work.

Editorial decision is based on careful synthesis of received evaluations, considering both specific comments from reviewers and the comprehensive evaluation of the manuscript by the editorial team. The assigned editor analyzes reviewers' recommendations, evaluates agreement or discrepancy between received opinions, and makes informed decisions about acceptance, rejection, or revision requests for the manuscript. In cases of contradictory evaluations or when the complexity of the topic warrants it, additional reviewers' opinions or editorial board members with specific expertise may be requested. Editorial decisions are communicated to authors accompanied by anonymous reviewers' comments and, when appropriate, additional observations from the editorial team that guide required improvements.

When the editorial decision requires modifications to the manuscript, the review of changes stage proceeds, in which authors must address observations made by reviewers and the editorial team. Authors receive a defined deadline to implement requested corrections and must provide a detailed response to each comment, explaining how suggestions were addressed or academically justifying decisions not to implement specific changes. The revised manuscript is evaluated again by the editorial team and, when necessary, sent back to original reviewers to verify that implemented modifications satisfy raised observations. This iterative process ensures that implemented improvements effectively strengthen the academic and scientific quality of the work.

The final decision represents the conclusion of the evaluation process, when the editorial team definitively determines acceptance or rejection of the manuscript based on the quality of revisions made and satisfactory compliance with required academic standards. Accepted manuscripts proceed immediately to editorial production stages, including style correction, layout, and electronic publication. In cases of rejection, authors receive a detailed explanation of the reasons supporting the decision, accompanied by constructive suggestions that may guide future improvements to the work. All final decisions are definitive and form part of the journal's permanent editorial record.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers of El Capacho Scientific Journal evaluate the relevance and originality of each manuscript as fundamental criteria that determine the potential contribution of the work to advancing knowledge in the areas of science and technology. Relevance evaluation examines the importance of the research problem addressed, its connection with contemporary academic and social priorities, and its pertinence for the specialized scientific community. Originality is evaluated both in terms of the novelty of the methodological approach and the unique contribution of obtained results, verifying that the work represents a genuine advance in the state of existing knowledge and does not constitute duplication or minor extension of previously published research. Reviewers must also consider the innovative perspective of the work, its potential to generate new research lines, and the creativity demonstrated in approaching complex scientific problems.

Methodology and scientific rigor constitute central aspects of evaluation that determine the validity and reliability of presented results. Reviewers examine in detail the research design, appropriateness of selected methods to address posed research questions, correct implementation of experimental protocols or data collection, and appropriate application of statistical or interpretive analysis techniques. This criterion includes evaluation of the representativeness of used samples, adequate control of confounding variables, reproducibility of described procedures, and soundness of theoretical foundations that support the research. Reviewers must also verify that methodological limitations are appropriately recognized and discussed by authors.

Quality of presentation is evaluated considering the clarity of scientific communication, logical organization of content, precision in the use of academic language, and effectiveness of figures, tables, and other graphic elements used to present results. Reviewers examine the manuscript structure to verify that it follows a logical sequence that facilitates understanding of the work, from problem contextualization to discussion of result implications. The quality of scientific writing must allow specialized readers to understand, evaluate, and potentially replicate the presented research. Additionally, the completeness and updating of bibliographic references are evaluated, as well as appropriate citation of relevant works in the field.

Contribution to the field is evaluated by determining the potential impact of the work on the development of scientific knowledge and its capacity to influence future research, public policies, or technological applications. Reviewers consider whether presented results solve important problems, generate significant new knowledge, or provide relevant empirical evidence for ongoing theoretical debates. This evaluation includes analysis of how the work positions itself regarding existing literature, whether it confirms, refutes, or nuances previous findings, and whether it opens new research perspectives. The contribution must be substantive and clearly articulated, demonstrating that the work adds genuine value to the corpus of knowledge in science and technology disciplines.

The practical implications of the work represent an evaluation criterion that considers the applicability and relevance of results for addressing real problems in academic, industrial, social, or technological contexts. Reviewers evaluate whether presented findings can inform practical decisions, guide the development of new technologies, contribute to evidence-based policy formulation, or provide useful tools for professionals in the field. This criterion is particularly important for a journal that covers science and technology, where the transfer of academic knowledge to practical applications constitutes a fundamental objective. The evaluation includes consideration of the feasibility of implementing results, resources necessary for their application, and potential benefits for various user groups.

Review Times

The first editorial evaluation is completed within a two-week deadline from manuscript receipt, during which the editorial team conducts an exhaustive review of formal aspects and basic content of the presented work. During this phase, compliance with presentation guidelines, completeness of required information, thematic relevance to the journal's scope, and a preliminary evaluation of the academic quality of content are verified. The editorial team also uses this period to identify and contact potential appropriate reviewers for the manuscript, considering their expertise in the thematic area, availability to participate in the evaluation process, and absence of conflicts of interest. Authors receive confirmation of their manuscript receipt and are informed about the result of this preliminary evaluation, with the work proceeding to the next stage or being returned for corrections when necessary.

Peer review is developed over a period of four to six weeks, allowing specialized reviewers to conduct a rigorous and detailed evaluation of the assigned manuscript. This schedule contemplates the time necessary for reviewers to carefully read the manuscript, consult relevant literature when necessary, evaluate all methodological and conceptual aspects of the work, and prepare constructive and well-founded comments. The editorial team maintains regular communication with reviewers to monitor the progress of evaluations and provide clarifications when requested. In exceptional cases where unforeseen circumstances prevent compliance with the established schedule, alternative measures are implemented such as seeking additional reviewers or justified extension of deadlines, always prioritizing evaluation quality over process speed.

Editorial decision is issued within two weeks after receiving evaluations from all assigned reviewers, during which the responsible editor carefully analyzes received comments, evaluates agreement between reviewers' opinions, and determines the most appropriate decision for the manuscript. This process includes preparation of detailed communication to authors that synthesizes the main points indicated by reviewers, provides clear guidance on required actions in case of revision requests, and explains the foundations of the decision taken. When reviewers' evaluations present significant discrepancies, the editor may request additional opinions or consult with other editorial board members before issuing the final decision.

The total estimated time to complete the entire evaluation process is established at eight to ten weeks from initial manuscript receipt to communication of the final decision, considering the inherent complexity of the peer review process and the need to maintain rigorous standards of academic quality. This global schedule includes contingency periods to address unforeseen situations such as the need for additional reviewers, more complex evaluations requiring extra time, or revision cycles involving substantial modifications to the original manuscript. The editorial team commits to keeping authors informed about evaluation progress and complying with these established deadlines, recognizing the importance of timely publication for the advancement of scientific knowledge and the professional development of contributing researchers.