escudo
escudo colombia
Editorial Center
DYNA
inicio
sedes
correo
pd

EDITORIAL POLICY
REVIEWER GUIDE

Peer review is an important process within the scientific publication that largely guarantees the quality and relevance of the manuscripts submitted for publication, for this reason should be done with utmost care and responsibility possible.

Duties of reviewers:

  • Contribution to the editorial decision
  • Celerity
  • Confidentiality
  • Objectivity
  • Disclosure of conflicts of interest

Articles submitted to DYNA Journal are submitted to a “double blind” review process, in which neither the peer reviewers, who are specialists with renowned expertise in the topic, nor the authors of the articles are aware of each other’s identity.  Reviewers evaluate each article with respect to quality, originality and relevance, and then give their technical opinion regarding its possible publication.

After verifying that the subject of the referred article is within your area of expertise, the reviewer has one month from the date of receipt of the item, to deliver their assessment of the manuscript, so as not to prolong the selection process too much.
Reviewers must do their job in an impartial and confidential manner and are free to notify the journal of any possible conflict that may exist, whether the conflict of interest in reviewing the assigned article is of an academic, work-related, or personal nature.

In order to carry out the review, peers have a form at their disposal, which is handed to them along with the article, in order to facilitate the article’s reading process and to document the reviewer’s opinion on the article’s relevance and possible publication. With the assistance of this form, the peer reviewers can submit their opinion according to one of the following options, stating:

  • Reviewer recommends the article be published exactly as it is presented.
  • The article may be accepted after small modifications, described in the review’s written report.
  • The article may be accepted after significant modifications, described in the review’s written report.
  • The article is not accepted for publication.
  • An additional reviewer must evaluate the article before it is accepted.

Once the peer review results have been received, the journal’s Editorial Committee will analize the results and, taking into account the comments made by the peer reviewers as well as the English language associate evaluator, will make decisions regarding the article’s publication.

DYNA Journal’s Editorial Committee makes it clear that not all peer review results must coincide regarding recommendations; therefore, it is the Editorial Committee which makes the final decision about selecting or rejecting the article for publication, based on all observations made by its reviewers.

The journal has selected a “double blind” type of review in order to guarantee impartiality in its review process and at no moment will the identities of the author nor the reviewers be revealed. Thus, the Editorial Committee may modify the evaluation reports in order to protect the peers’ identities, in any case which it sees fit to do so.

 

Advice for peers, in order to facilitate the review process

Here is a summary of some issues to keep in mind, to help peer reviewers carry out their evaluation in a more versatile and appropriate manner:

  • The articles’ titles must be concise and descriptive of the investigation or topic which the article presents.
  • The Summary and Abstract must be consistent in its translation between both languages (English and Spanish), and they must clearly describe the study at hand, its methodology and materials, as well as its results and conclusions.
  • DYNA expects articles to be published to be of interest and relevance to the scientific community in the area of engineering; therefore, it is recommended that the main topic of the evaluated article be highlighted in the review.
  • For the Journal, it is important to verify that the text is original and innovative, that is, it is recommended that the reviewer certify whether the article is an original, and not a copy or a superficial modification of works which have already been published, with similar methods and results. This does not apply if the article belongs to a continuation of a research project, in which the new material does not coincide with previously published material more that 50%.
  • With respect to the presented methodology, it is expected that its description be logical and detailed, so that it will be easily understandable to any reader; it is also important that the measurements and results obtained be sufficient and clear in the results expressed in the content.
  • In general, the article’s structure must be clear, concise and reasonable. The language used in the text, apart from being understandable even to the non-expert reader; the reader’s knowledge of jargon which is common in a specific field must not be assumed, and abbreviations and acronyms must be clearly defined the first time that they appear in the text.
  • Verify the measuring system used in the text to ensure that it is the internationally used one; furthermore, in case that the article includes equations and calculations, it is advisable that their results be verified as well.
  • Verify whether the images and graphs are necessary for the presentation of the text, that is, whether they accurately describe the information that is presented, and if the text refers to them correctly.
  • Conclusions must be well structured, and in case they can be improved through new suggestions, it is pertinent that the reviewer point this out.
  • Finally, it is important that the reviewer verify whether the bibliographic references are up-to-date, that they are correctly referred to within the text, and that they are sufficiently complete with regards to the presented topic.

 

Regarding the review’s response or final assessment:

The evaluation results will be issued along one of these alternatives:

  • Reviewer recommends the article be published exactly as it is presented There are no suggestions of modifications for the article, and it may be published as is. The Editorial Committee will review the article for appropriate formatting and presentation, based on the indications in the Article Submission Formatting Model, so that the authors are able to hand in their final version.
  • The article may be accepted after small modifications, described in the review’s written report: The peer reviewers will offer minor suggestions and recommendations. If these are applied by the authors, the Editorial Committee will verify the corrected version and aspects of formatting and presentation in order to make a decision about the article’s publication.
  • The article may be accepted after significant modifications, described in the review’s written report:  It is recommended that the article not be published without previously making major corrections suggested by the peer reviewers. These corrections must be considered and applied by the authors; the final corrected version will be sent for peer review once again, in order to verify compliance with the suggested corrections, after which the final decision will be made.
  • An additional reviewer must evaluate the article before it is accepted: After the first peer reviewers have evaluated the article and deem it necessary for it to be reviewed by another peer who possesses a deeper mastery of the article’s topic.
  • The article is not accepted for publication: The Editorial Committee decides not to accept the article for publication, as a result of the results of the peer review process. This decision is final.

Current Issue   
  Year 84 , Issue 203
   Diciembre 2017


Scimago
SCImago Journal & Country Rank




Capes - WebQualis Revistas Universidad Nacional de Colombia Thomson Reuters SciELO CHEMICAL ABSTRACTS Red ALyC DOAJ ACTUALIDAD IBEROAMERICANA GEOREF LATINDEX

Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Carrera 80 No 65-223 - Núcleo Robledo - Bloque M9 - 103
Medellín - Colombia