Editorial process

The editorial process of Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Médicas de la Universidad de Cuenca ensures the scientific quality of published articles through a strict peer-review system following the double-blind modality, in the following stages:

1. Submission and Preliminary Evaluation

Upon receiving a manuscript, the Editor conducts a preliminary evaluation to verify:

  • Originality: The manuscript must not have been previously published or under review by another journal.
  • Relevance: The content must be significant and contribute to scientific knowledge.

If the manuscript meets the minimum criteria, the editorial secretary proceeds with:

  • Plagiarism detection system screening.
  • Verification of compliance with the journal's guidelines (insert link to the guidelines).
  • Spelling and style review (tables, images, and figures presentation).
  • Clarity and organization: appropriate structure according to the manuscript type (abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, etc.).

Subsequently, the manuscript is submitted to the Editorial Committee, which provides recommendations if necessary. After this step, it is sent to specialized reviewers (academic peers) through a double-blind peer-review system.

If the manuscript does not meet the minimum criteria, the corresponding author is informed that it has been rejected.

2. Editorial Committee Review

The members of the Editorial Committee are responsible for reviewing and analyzing:

  • Content: Ensuring subject-verb agreement, correct verb tenses, and logical sentence structure. Prefers short and direct sentences while avoiding redundancies or ambiguous phrases. Written in the third person.
  • Abbreviations: Clearly defined upon first use.
  • Flow of ideas: Ensuring smooth and coherent presentation.
  • Methodology: Validity, rigor, and reproducibility of studies.
  • References and citations: Up-to-date sources formatted in Vancouver style.

3. Peer Review

The peer-review process follows a double-blind system, ensuring that neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identities.

Reviewers conduct an in-depth analysis of the manuscript, evaluating:

  • Originality and relevance: Contribution to knowledge, topic significance, and updated information.
  • Methodology: Validity, rigor, and reproducibility of the study.
  • Results and analysis: Clarity in data presentation and coherence in interpretation.
  • Scientific validity: Contributions within the reviewers’ field of expertise.

Academic peers provide constructive and objective feedback, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement in the manuscript under review.

Journal keeps the names of external reviewers confidential due to its double-blind peer review system.

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ comments, the Editor issues a decision:

  • Acceptance without changes.
  • Acceptance with modifications: Authors must make significant revisions.
  • Rejection: If the manuscript fails to meet the required standards.

For revisions, authors have 15 days to submit an updated version, which undergoes further evaluation.

5. Approval and Publication

The Editorial Committee has the final responsibility for manuscript approval, based on reviewers’ recommendations. Accepted manuscripts are published in the next available issue.

Monitoring and Transparency

Authors can track the editorial process via the Open Journal System (OJS) operated by the journal. Reviewers' decisions are final and non-appealable.

Important note: Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee its acceptance or publication. The full editorial process details are available on the journal's website. The review process will not exceed 60 days.