Peer Review

Editorial Process

Pre-Check

Response Time: 2 to 3 business days.

During the Pre-Check stage, the editorial team verifies:

1. Whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s thematic and methodological scope.
2. Whether authorship and institutional affiliation information is complete, consistent, and reliable.
3. Whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s author guidelines and formal requirements.
4. Whether the reference list is sufficient, up to date, and includes relevant and recognized sources, with DOI links whenever available.
5. Whether the manuscript has not been previously published or simultaneously submitted to another journal in English, Spanish, or Portuguese.
6. Whether the manuscript shows evidence of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or problematic similarity.
7. Whether the manuscript meets minimum standards of academic writing, spelling, punctuation, and clarity.
8. Whether the submission includes the required documentation, including the Cover Letter and the Authors Information Form.

Manuscripts showing evidence of plagiarism, false authorship or affiliation information, academic fraud, or any ethical concern will be immediately rejected.

Articles that fail to meet any editorial criterion other than plagiarism or ethical issues may be returned to the authors for preliminary corrections within a deadline established by the journal. Manuscripts that are not accompanied by the required documentation will not enter the peer review process until such requirements have been fulfilled.

Peer Review Process

Timeline: 5 to 12 weeks for the peer review process, depending on the availability of the selected reviewers.

The evaluation process at CESTA follows a double-blind review model, which means that neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identity. This review model strengthens confidentiality, impartiality, and objectivity throughout the evaluation process.

The selection criteria for peer reviewers are as follows:

1. A minimum academic degree at the master’s level in the manuscript’s field of knowledge.
2. Recent scientific publications in the thematic area of the submitted manuscript.
3. Not being a member of CESTA’s Editorial Committee.
4. Not being affiliated with the same institution or organization as the manuscript’s authors.
5. Not having any conflict of interest with the publication or with any of the actors involved (authors, editors, committee members, or administrative staff).

Selected reviewers will receive a formal invitation from the editorial coordination team to participate in the review process. This invitation may be accepted or declined. If accepted, the reviewer will have access to the full manuscript and the online evaluation form through the journal’s OJS (Open Journal Systems) platform.

Important: by accepting the editor’s invitation to review a manuscript, the reviewer declares that no conflict of interest exists and agrees to act in accordance with the journal’s ethical, confidentiality, and academic integrity principles, as described in the Publication Ethics section.

In addition to the technical and disciplinary aspects of the manuscript, reviewers assess the quality of the title, the structure and content of the abstract, the relevance of the keywords, the clarity of the introduction, the soundness of the methodology, the level of argumentation, the consistency of the results, the discussion, the conclusions, and the quality of the references.

The review form used by the journal can be consulted at the following link: Review Form

Reviewers submit general observations and recommendations for improving the manuscript and issue one of the following recommendations:

Accept Submission: the reviewed version of the article meets the journal’s scientific, ethical, and editorial standards and may be accepted for publication.

Revisions Required: the manuscript requires minor revisions that can be readily addressed by the authors.

Resubmit for Review: the manuscript requires substantial revisions and must undergo a new round of evaluation.

Decline Submission: the manuscript does not meet the standards of quality, relevance, or rigor required by the journal, and its publication is not recommended.

If there is disagreement between reviewers’ recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief, with possible support from the Editorial Committee, will make the final decision on the manuscript.

Editor Decision

Responsible Parties: Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or Guest Editor.

Timeline: 1 week to issue the editorial decision.

Once at least two review reports have been received, the editor will have one week to communicate a decision to the corresponding author.

The Editor-in-Chief may accept the manuscript, reject it, or request additional revisions from the authors in accordance with the reviewers’ reports. If the editorial decision differs from the reviewers’ recommendations, the decision must be duly justified.

The editorial decision may be delegated to associate editors or guest editors, when applicable. If an editor has a conflict of interest, they must refrain from participating in the decision-making process.

The author will receive an email with the editor’s decision. This communication will include a summary of the reviewers’ comments, the relevant recommendations, and the deadline for submitting a revised version, if applicable.

Online Tracking: the editorial decision will be reflected in the manuscript’s status within the OJS platform. In the event of a decision of Decline Submission, the article will leave the editorial process and may be found in the archive section of the system.

Author Revisions

Deadlines:

1 week in the case of a decision of Accept Submission.

2 weeks in the case of a decision of Revisions Required.

3 to 4 weeks in the case of a decision of Resubmit for Review.

Once the editorial decision has been issued, the authors will have the established deadlines to review the reviewers’ comments, prepare the revised version of the manuscript, and submit any additional documentation required.

Accept Submission

A decision of Accept Submission will be issued when:

1. The reviewers’ recommendations are favorable and the manuscript is accepted without substantial observations.
2. The manuscript has satisfactorily passed a previous round of minor corrections or a second round of review.

At this stage, the editor will ask the authors to review the final version of the manuscript before the copyediting and layout process begins, and will send the corresponding copyright or publishing authorization document, which must be completed and signed by all authors, in accordance with the journal’s editorial policy.

Authors may not make substantial changes to the content of an accepted manuscript and must limit their revisions to the following:

• Verifying authorship information, including names, email addresses, affiliations, ORCID identifiers, biographies, and funding information.
• Restoring information omitted during the double-blind review process in the final accepted version.
• Ensuring and improving the quality of graphs, figures, and images.
• Verifying that each table, graph, and figure includes its corresponding source or explanatory note, when applicable.
• Submitting the required editorial document, duly completed and signed by all authors.
• Adjusting the citation style to IEEE format and completing the reference list according to the suggestions made by reviewers or the editorial team.
• Reviewing the completeness of bibliographic data in each reference, including authors, abbreviated titles, page numbers, and DOI links whenever available.

Once the final version of the manuscript has been received, the editorial team will carry out a final similarity check and verify that all required documentation has been submitted. The editor will then issue the corresponding certificate or formal communication of acceptance.

Revisions Required

In this case, the manuscript requires a limited number of corrections that can be easily addressed by the authors. Authors must respond to each reviewer comment within the established deadline, preferably by means of a response letter or document clearly indicating the changes made. If the authors choose not to implement any recommendation, they must provide a clear and academically grounded justification.

Once the revised version has been received, the Editor-in-Chief may issue a decision of Accept Submission or request further clarifications if necessary.

Resubmit for Review

In this case, the manuscript requires substantial revisions that justify a second round of evaluation. Authors must respond in detail to each reviewer comment and submit a revised version within the established deadline. If they decide not to incorporate any recommendation, they must duly justify it.

Once the revised version has been received, the manuscript will be submitted to a second round of peer review under the same general conditions as the first round. The editor may invite the reviewers from the first round again or appoint new reviewers.

After the second-round reports have been received, the editor may issue a decision of Accept Submission, Revisions Required, or Decline Submission. A manuscript may not receive a decision of Resubmit for Review more than once.

Correction, Production, and Publication

Timelines: 7 business days for language correction and layout (Typesetter).

2 business days to resolve copyediting queries (Authors).

2 business days to review the article proofs (Authors).

1 business day to make final changes, if required (Typesetter).

1 business day for online publication of the final version (Editorial Coordination).

Accepted articles will be sent to the assigned typesetter, who will begin the language correction and layout process. Through the editorial coordination team, the typesetter may consult the authors regarding writing, context, figure and table composition, technical terminology, coherence, structure, formula symbols, sources, or missing citations, among other aspects.

Authors will have 2 business days to respond to and resolve the typesetter’s queries via email.

A proof version of the article will then be sent to the author for review. The author will have 2 business days to indicate and submit any pertinent corrections. The proof version will include the DOI identifier and the assigned pagination.

The typesetter will have 1 business day to incorporate the author’s requested changes, if necessary, and the editorial coordination team will proceed with the final online publication of the article within approximately 1 to 2 business days.

The editorial team will promptly inform authors if the established timelines need to be modified for technical or administrative reasons.

Corrections and Retractions

Situations related to corrections, errata, retractions, expressions of concern, or article withdrawal will be handled in accordance with CESTA’s editorial policy and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Readers, authors, or reviewers who identify significant errors or possible ethical concerns may contact the journal at cesta@cuc.edu.co.

Whenever necessary, the journal will assess each case and adopt the corresponding editorial measures, ensuring confidentiality, due process, and the integrity of the scholarly record. For further information, please consult the Retractions and Corrections Policy.