Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to INGE CUC receive an initial editorial screening. If they meet the journal’s requirements, external peer reviewers then evaluate them under a double-blind model. Receipt of a manuscript does not imply any commitment to publish.

Initial Editorial Screening (Pre-check)

Responsible parties: Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Coordination..


At this stage, the journal verifies:

  • Scope and relevance: consistency with the journal’s aims, thematic focus, and methodological orientation.
  • Compliance with author guidelines: structure, formatting, submission requirements, and mandatory documentation.
  • Authorship and affiliation: complete, verifiable, and consistent information, including ORCID where applicable.
  • Minimum editorial quality: coherence, clear expression, good writing, correct spelling, and full references.
  • Originality and editorial ethics: absence of prior publication and absence of simultaneous submission to another journal.
  • Similarity and AI writing detection: the manuscript is screened using Turnitin, an online tool for checking originality and possible AI-generated content.

Eligibility for Peer Review:

To proceed to external peer review, both reports must be below 20%.

Grounds for Immediate Rejection:
A manuscript may be rejected outright, without allowing resubmission of the same version, in cases including:

  • Plagiarism or unacceptable textual similarity according to Turnitin (≥20%);
  • Unacceptable AI-generated writing according to Turnitin (≥20%);
  • False or inconsistent authorship or affiliation information; or
  • Evidence of data manipulation, fraud, or breach of ethical principles.

Formal Corrections:

If the manuscript does not meet editorial requirements but has no ethical concerns, the Editor may return it for correction. Authors may then resubmit within the stated deadline. The manuscript will not proceed to peer review until all requirements and documentation are completed.

Online Tracking:

Once Pre-check is completed, the manuscript status changes from "Awaiting Assignment" to "In Review." Each submission receives a unique code. Authors must include this code in all correspondence.

Peer Review

The journal uses double-blind peer review with two external reviewers. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure confidentiality, impartiality, and objectivity.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected according to the following criteria:

  • They hold at least a master’s degree (or equivalent qualification) in the field of the manuscript;
  • They have recent, relevant scholarly output in the article's subject area.
  • They are not members of the journal’s Editorial Committee;
  • They do not share the same institutional affiliation as the authors; and
  • They do not present any conflict of interest with the authors, editors, or the subject matter of the manuscript.

Upon accepting the invitation, reviewers must declare no conflicts of interest. They must also commit to confidentiality and adherence to editorial ethics standards.

Scope of Evaluation

In addition to the scientific and methodological contribution of the manuscript, reviewers assess:

  • Title, abstract, and keywords (coherence, precision, and relevance);
  • Introduction, methodology, and argumentation;
  • Results, discussion, and conclusions;
  • Quality, currency, and adequacy of references and citations; and
  • Overall coherence, clarity, and structure of the manuscript.

Timelines

Reviewers are expected to submit evaluations within two months. The Editor may extend this deadline if needed to maintain quality in the review process.

Possible Recommendations

Reviewers provide comments and recommend one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept (publishable as submitted).
  2. Accept with minor revisions (no further external review required).
  3. Reconsider after major revisions (requires a new round of review).
  4. Reject (not publishable on scientific or editorial grounds).

If reviewer recommendations are contradictory, the Editor may consult the Editorial Committee and, if needed, request a third external review.

Editorial Decision

Responsible party: Editor-in-Chief, who may delegate to a Guest Editor when appropriate..

Based on at least two review reports, the Editor communicates one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Accept with revisions (minor or major)
  • Reject

If the editorial decision differs from reviewer recommendations, the Editor must document the justification. If the Editor has a conflict of interest, he or she will not make the final decision.

Author Revision

When revisions are requested, the journal provides the review reports to the corresponding author, who must submit a revised version of the manuscript and a detailed response letter explaining, point by point, how each comment was addressed or giving a reasoned academic justification for any comment not incorporated and provide a detailed response letter explaining, point by point, how each comment was addressed, or giving a reasoned academic justification for any comment not incorporated.

If major revisions are required, the Editor will assess the revised version and may return it to the reviewer(s) for final evaluation.

If authors do not submit the revised manuscript within two months, the journal may end the process and reject the submission. In that case, any revision must be submitted as a new manuscript and will begin a new editorial process.

Final Verification of Originality and AI Use

Before copyediting and publication, the journal does a final Turnitin check to verify:

  • Similarity Report < 20%
  • AI Writing Report < 20%

This final verification is conducted in addition to the journal’s documentary and editorial compliance checks.

Duration of the Editorial Process

The editorial process, including pre-check, peer review, revisions, editorial decision, and moving to production, averages up to six months. This timeline depends on manuscript complexity, reviewer response times, and the number of revision rounds.