Rules for the evaluators

Investigative Transcendence Journal (RTI)

Principles of the evaluation process

RTI uses the double-blind peer-review system, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process. This system seeks to guarantee:

  1. Impartiality: Evaluations are based exclusively on the scientific quality of the manuscript.
  2. Transparency: The process follows clear and explicit criteria.
  3. Confidentiality: The identity of the reviewers and authors is kept confidential.
  4. Academic rigour: It ensures that published articles meet high methodological and scientific standards.

Reviewer responsibilities

Ethical commitments

  1. Confidentiality: The content of the manuscripts reviewed must be treated as confidential information. It is not permitted to share, discuss or use the information contained in them.
  2. Conflict of interest: If the reviewers identify the authors or there is any conflict of interest (personal, financial, institutional, etc.), they must immediately notify the editor and decline to review the manuscript.
  3. Objectivity: Evaluations should be based on scientific and academic criteria, avoiding personal judgements about the authors or their affiliations.
  4. Respect: Comments should be expressed in a constructive and respectful manner, even when they are critical.
  5. Punctuality: Meet the deadlines set for the evaluation. If you are unable to complete it in the allotted time, you must notify us in advance.

Aspects to be evaluated

Reviewers should consider the following aspects when reviewing a manuscript:

  1. Relevance and originality:
    • Contribution to knowledge in the field
    • Originality of approach
    • Topicality and relevance of subject matter
  2. Methodological rigour:
    • Coherence between objectives, methodology and results
    • Adequacy of methods used
    • Validity of instruments and procedures
    • Consistency in data analysis
  3. Theoretical basis:
    • Relevance and currency of references
    • Adequate review of the literature
    • Clarity of the conceptual framework
  4. Structure and writing:
    • Logical organisation of the content
    • Clarity and precision of the writing
    • Adequate use of academic language
    • Quality of tables, figures and graphic elements
  5. Formal aspects:
    • Compliance with APA 7th edition standards
    • Adequacy to the standards of the journal
    • Quality of the abstracts in Spanish and English
  6. Conclusions reached:
    • Correspondence with the objectives and results
    • Relevance of the theoretical or practical implications
    • Identification of limitations and future lines of research

Evaluation procedure

Receipt and acceptance

  1. You will receive an invitation to evaluate a manuscript together with its abstract.
  2. You must confirm your availability or decline the invitation within a maximum period of 5 days.
  3. Upon acceptance, you will have access to the full manuscript (without author details) and the evaluation form.

Deadline and process

  1. The standard deadline for completing the evaluation is 21 calendar days from acceptance.
  2. The evaluation is carried out through the journal's editorial management system [include platform or method].
  3. You must complete the evaluation form provided, which includes:
    • Quantitative assessment of the different aspects of the manuscript
    • General comments on strengths and weaknesses
    • Specific recommendations for improving the manuscript
    • Final decision

Decision

The reviewer must issue one of the following decisions:

  1. Acceptance without modifications: The manuscript can be published in its current form.
  2. Acceptance with minor modifications: Changes in format, style or minor clarifications that do not affect the substantial content are required.
  3. Acceptance conditional on major modifications: Significant changes are required in aspects such as methodology, analysis, structure or theoretical basis.
  4. Rejection: The manuscript has major deficiencies that cannot be remedied by revision or does not meet the journal's standards.

Recommendations for evaluation

  1. Be specific: Provide concrete examples and precise locations (page, paragraph) when pointing out problems or suggesting improvements.
  2. Be constructive: Offer practical suggestions for addressing the identified deficiencies.
  3. Prioritise: Distinguish between fundamental problems that affect the validity of the work and minor aspects that can be improved.
  4. Be balanced: Recognise both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
  5. Focus on the substance: Centre your evaluation on the scientific content rather than on minor typographical or grammatical errors (although these should also be pointed out).

Recognition for reviewers

RTI recognises the valuable contribution of its reviewers through:

Certificate of participation as a reviewer that can be used for academic and curricular purposes.