Peer Review

Editorial Process

Pre-Check

Persons responsible: Chief Editor, Publication Coordinator.

Outcome: An e-mail is sent by the editor to the author indicating the decision made as to whether the article has been accepted to enter the peer review process, or to request changes, or to reject the article.

During the Pre-Check phase, the review consists in verifying that:

1. The manuscript is within the journal’s thematic and methodological scope.
2. The information on the authors, their affiliation and metadata are complete and reliable.
3. The document fulfills the journal’s criteria (Guidelines for Authors).
4. The bibliography section is adequate in size, is updated, and includes recognized sources with their respective DOI links.
5. The article has not been published previously in any other journal.
6. The manuscript displays no evidence of plagiarism.
7. The manuscript fulfills minimum standards of style, spelling and punctuation.
8. The manuscript includes the required attachments: Statement of Originality letter and Author Information Form.

If a manuscript displays any evidence of plagiarism, false information on the authors or any ethical issue, it will be immediately rejected.

If an article fails to fulfill any of the criteria (other than plagiarism or ethical issues), the author will be given the opportunity of submitting a revised version within an established time frame. Manuscripts that do not include the required documentation (Copyright Agreement) will not be forwarded to the review process until these requirements are fulfilled.

On-line follow-up: Once an article is accepted for inclusion in the peer review process, the status of the article on the journal’s platform will change from “Waiting for Assignment” to “Under Review”. The author can then inquire on the progress of the process using the “Review” tab.

The submissions platform assigns a unique identifier number to each article. Please include this assigned number in the subject line of any correspondence regarding inquiries or submissions.

 

Peer Review

Persons responsible: Chief Editor, Publication Coordinator

The review process takes approximately between 6 and 8 weeks, depending on the availability of the selected reviewers.

At JACN, a Double-Blind Review process is used, which means that neither the authors nor the reviewers will know each other’s identity. As a minimum, two reviewers will be assigned. The process is intended to promote confidentiality and impartiality during the review.

Reviewer Evaluation Report

The following are the requirements or criteria for the selection of peer reviewers:

1. A minimum educational level of a master’s degree in the area of knowledge of the manuscript.
2. Having made scientific publications in the theme area of the reviewed article in the last two years.
3. Not being affiliated to the same institution/organization as the manuscript authors.
4. Having no conflict of interest with the publication or any of its members: authors, editors, committee members or administrative staff.

The selected reviewers will receive an invitation to participate in the review process from the Chief Editor and/or the Publication Coordinator. The invitation may be accepted or declined. If it is accepted, the reviewer will have access to the full anonymous text and an on-line form to perform the arbitration process. This process is carried out through the magazine’s OJS (Open Journal System) platform.

In this process, in addition to the aspects related to the topic and area of knowledge of the manuscript, an assessment will also be made on the appropriateness of the title, the contents and structure of the abstract, the selected keywords, the contents and structure of the introduction, the presented methodology, the argumentation, the results obtained, the discussion, the conclusions, and its contribution and impact on knowledge.

The peer reviewer will present his/her general comments and recommendations to improve the manuscript and will issue a recommendation, based on one of the following opinions:

Publishable without changes: The reviewed version of the article fulfills all the requirements and is publishable in its current condition.

Publishable with minor changes: The manuscript requires minor changes that can be easily corrected.

Publishable with substantial changes: The manuscript requires considerable changes, which implies that the document must be reviewed again by the peers or members of the editorial committee once the author has made the corrections.

Not publishable (Rejected): The manuscript is not suitable for publication. Its publication would not contribute added value to the area of knowledge.

In the event of any difference in the reviewers’ recommendations, the Chief Editor (possibly with the assistance of the Editorial Committee) will issue the final decision on the article.

The Chief Editor, through the Publication Coordinator, will issue and send a certificate of participation to the reviewers of the issue by e-mail within one month, at the latest.

 

Editor's Decision

Persons Responsible: Chief Editor, Guest Editor

Once the recommendations of at least two reviewers have been received, the Editor must communicate a decision to the author within the next two weeks.

The Chief Editor can either Accept (Publishable), Reject (Not publishable) or request additional changes to the authors (publishable with minor or substantial changes). In the event the Editor’s decision runs against the reviewers’ recommendations, the Editor must include a justification for the decision.

The decision to publish may be delegated to guest editors (if any). If an editor has any conflict of interest, he/she must be excluded from any decision-making.

The author will receive an e-mail indicating the Editor’s Decision. The e-mail will include a summary of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, and it will set a deadline for the author to submit any requested changes.

On-line follow-up: The editor’s decision will result in an immediate change in the manuscript’s status on the Submissions platform. If the decision is “Not publishable”, the article will immediately be removed from the magazine’s review process, and the author will be able to see the details in the File section.

 

Revision by the Author

Persons Responsible: Authors

Deadlines: 

1 week at the latest in the case the decision is Publishable with Minor Changes.

2 weeks at the latest in the case the decision is Publishable with substantial changes.

Once the editor’s decision has been issued, the author must revise the article within the above time frames, submit the changes suggested by the reviewers and include the required documentation, including the Assignment of Rights signed by each author.

Publishable:

A Publishable decision will be issued when:

1. The reviewers’ recommendations were positive, and the manuscript was Accepted for publication with no further comments by the reviewers.
2. The manuscript required minor corrections that have already been made or it has successfully passed a second round of reviews.
3. Substantial corrections were made to the manuscript and it has successfully passed a second round of reviews.

If the article was approved without changes or only minor changes, the authors must not make major changes to the contents. Such changes must be limited to:

• Ensuring inclusion of correct information on the authors (names, e-mails, affiliation, ORCID, biographies) and the Financing section. Most of this information was excluded from the version submitted to peer review (Double Blind Process), and consequently the author must make sure to include it again in the final accepted version.
• Verifying and enhancing the quality of graphics and images, if any.

Once the final version of the manuscript is received, a final plagiarism search is made, and all the required documentation is checked. The editor will issue a Certificate of Acceptance, which is sent to the authors by e-mail.

Follow-up on line: Once the “Publishable” decision is issued, the status of the article in the magazine’s platform is changed to “Publishing”. The author may view the progress of the process in the “Publishing” tab.

Publishable with Minor Changes:

In this case the manuscript requires a small number of changes that can be easily corrected. The authors must address each of the reviewers’ suggestions within the established time frame. If the author decides not to abide by any of these recommendations, adequate justification must be provided.

Once the changes are received, the Chief Editor may issue a decision of Publishable or require further clarifications or changes, if necessary.

Publishable with Substantial Changes:

In this case, the manuscript requires substantial changes, and after they have been made the article must be reviewed again. The authors must address each of the reviewers’ suggestions within the established time frames. If the author decides not to abide by any of these recommendations, adequate justification must be provided.

Once the changes have been made, the manuscript will be forwarded to editorial review.

Once comments are received, the editor may issue a “Publishable” decision, if all corrections were made, or “Not publishable” if the article does not fulfill the criteria of the reviewers and the Chief Editor.

 

Correction, Production and Publication

Persons Responsible: Authors, Publication Coordinator, Assigned Layout Designer

Deadlines: 10 business days for layout and proofreading (Layout Designer)

2 business days to respond to any doubts arising from proofreading process (Authors)

3 business days to make any additional changes (if required) (Layout Designer)

3 business days for on-line publication of the final version (Publication Coordinator).

Accepted articles will be forwarded to the assigned Layout Designer to begin the layout and proofreading process. Through the Publication Coordinator, the Layout Designer may make inquiries to the authors regarding the text and the context and composition of figures and tables (the use of technical terms, enhancements to consistency, structure and symbols in formulas, fonts or missing citations, etc.)

The author must reply and address the Layout Designer’s inquiries within the next two business days.

The test version will include the DOI identifier and the assigned pages (Publication Coordinator).

The publishing team will inform the author of any changes in the scheduled timetable due to technical or administrative reasons.

 

Correction and Retraction

Persons Responsible: Editors, Authors, Readers

Term: In the event of a report, one week to apply the protocol

Communications: Minutes of Meetings, COPE Ethics Protocols, Editor’s Decision, Actions derived from the recommendations of the COPE Ethics Protocols.

JACN is an Open Access publication, which means that anyone can access and read the full text with no limitations and free of charge. In the event you or any reader has any questions, concerns, comments or suggestions about an article, they may be submitted by e-mail to the address jacn@cuc.edu.co. Letters to the Editor can also be sent to the same e-mail address.

If you find any scientific errors of potential ethical issues, please contact us in order to open the respective investigation and take immediate action. In the event the error or ethical issue is demonstrated, the appropriate correction or retraction process will be initiated.

Corrections of important errors once the article has been published on line will be published separately in a retraction document at the end of each issue of the magazine.

Small errors that do not affect understanding of the paper will be corrected in the on-line version within 15 days after publication.

Retractions are published whenever the authors, readers or editors find major errors in the published article, either involuntary or arising from improper scientific conduct.

The editors will review the document and the issue that was posed and will contact the authors and reviewers before making the decision to retract. To this effect, COPE recommended protocols will be used to specify the conduct or improper practice.

 

Rejection Rate

Percentage of rejected items per year: 20%.