Peer Review

1. Review process

Ensayos Revista de Economía applies a peer-review process to guarantee the scientific quality, thematic relevance, originality, methodological rigor, argumentative consistency, and academic integrity of manuscripts submitted to the journal. All received manuscripts are evaluated according to academic, editorial, and ethical criteria. The acceptance of a manuscript depends on compliance with the author guidelines, alignment with the journal's focus and scope, the quality of the scientific contribution, and the results of the editorial evaluation and peer-review process.

All received manuscripts are evaluated according to academic, editorial, and ethical criteria. The acceptance of a manuscript depends on compliance with the author guidelines, alignment with the journal's focus and scope, the quality of the scientific contribution, and the results of the editorial evaluation and peer-review process.

 

2. Review Modality

The journal uses the double-blind peer-review modality. In this system, authors' identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors.

 

3. Editorial Evaluation Prior to Peer Review

  • Alignment with the journal's thematic focus and scope.
  • Compliance with the author guidelines.
  • Suitability for the type of contribution accepted by the journal.
  • Originality and unpublished nature of the manuscript.
  • Clarity of the objective, research problem, and academic contribution.
  • Methodological, analytical, or theoretical consistency, depending on the type of manuscript.
  • Compliance with ethical criteria, mandatory declarations, and formal requirements.
  • Overall quality of academic writing.
  • Absence of indications of plagiarism, redundant publication, simultaneous submission, or editorial misconduct.

The journal rejects at this stage those manuscripts that do not meet the editorial, thematic, formal, ethical, or scientific criteria required to initiate peer review.

 

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewer selection is the responsibility of the editorial team. When necessary, the editorial team will rely on the Scientific Advisory Board's support to identify specialists appropriate to the manuscript's subject matter.

Selection is carried out by considering the correspondence between the evaluator's specialization and the specific subject matter of the manuscript submitted for evaluation, as well as criteria such as academic suitability, experience in the knowledge area, research trajectory, scientific production related to the manuscript's topic, and the absence of conflicts of interest. For reviewer selection, the journal considers the following criteria:

  • Academic background and experience in the manuscript's field of knowledge.
  • Recent and relevant scientific production in the evaluated subject area.
  • Methodological, theoretical, or applied knowledge related to the type of contribution.
  • Academic independence from the authors.
  • Absence of personal, academic, professional, institutional, financial, or recent collaborative relationships that affect the objectivity of the evaluation.
  • Prior compliance with quality, timeliness, and editorial ethics criteria for recurring reviewers.

The journal selects reviewers who favor national and international openness, institutional and disciplinary diversity, and thematic correspondence with each manuscript. In reviewer selection, the journal avoids institutional endogamy with respect to author affiliation, as well as recurrent dependence on the same group of evaluators linked to the journal's editorial team.

An invitation to participate as a reviewer does not imply automatic acceptance of future collaborations. Selection is carried out independently for each manuscript, in accordance with the required specialization and the ethical standards of the editorial process.

 

5. Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial evaluation are sent to two specialist reviewers in the work's subject area. In this regard, reviewers shall issue their assessments in accordance with the journal's reviewer guidelines. The assessment shall be objective, well-founded, respectful, and aimed at evaluating the scientific quality of the manuscript. Their observations should help improve the clarity, rigor, coherence, and academic relevance of the evaluated work. The general criteria considered are:

  • Originality and relevance of the contribution.
  • Clarity of the research problem, objective, and academic contribution.
  • Relevance and timeliness of the theoretical foundation.
  • Methodological or conceptual coherence.
  • Quality of the analysis, results, discussion, or argumentative development.
  • Appropriate use of sources, data, evidence, and bibliographic references.
  • Clarity, organization, and consistency of the manuscript.
  • Relevance of tables, figures, models, appendices, or supplementary materials.
  • Compliance with ethical principles of scientific publication.

 

6. Possible Recommendations

As a result of peer review, reviewers issue one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without modifications: The manuscript meets the required scientific, editorial, and formal criteria.
  • Accept with minor modifications:The manuscript requires specific adjustments that do not substantially modify its structure, methodology, central argument, or results.
  • Re-evaluate after major modifications: The manuscript requires substantive changes before a final editorial decision. The corrected version will be assessed by the editorial team and, when the nature of the changes so requires, will be sent again for peer review.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the scientific, methodological, conceptual, ethical, or editorial criteria required by the journal.

Reviewer recommendations are considered by the editorial team but do not substitute for the final editorial decision.

 

7. Modifications and Author Response

When modifications are requested, authors shall submit a corrected version of the manuscript together with a response letter addressed to the editor and reviewers.

The response letter shall explain, in an orderly manner, the changes made and indicate how the observations received were addressed. The response shall be organized point by point, indicating the modifications incorporated into the manuscript. When authors decide not to incorporate a recommendation, they shall provide an academic justification.

The corrected version shall be submitted within the deadline indicated by the journal. Failure to meet the deadline, without a previously authorized extension request, will result in the manuscript being archived due to lack of response.

 

8. Average Evaluation Process Times

Ensayos Revista de Economía informs authors about the progress of the editorial process through the editorial management platform. Under ordinary conditions, the editorial evaluation and peer-review process has an average duration of up to six months, counted from the receipt of the manuscript. This period may be extended in cases of major modifications, substantive discrepancies between assessments, unavailability of specialized reviewers, a justified extension request from authors, extraordinary review rounds, or additional requirements arising from the editorial evaluation.

Authors shall address requested modifications within the period indicated in the editorial communication. When they require an extension, they shall request it before the deadline, explaining the academic or technical reasons that justify it.

If authors do not submit the corrected version by the established deadline and do not request a duly justified extension, the journal will archive the manuscript for lack of response. In that case, the editorial process will be considered concluded. If authors wish to continue with publication, they must submit a new manuscript, which will be evaluated according to the editorial policies in effect at the time of the new submission.

 

9. Extraordinary Review Rounds

The ordinary peer-review process contemplates the initial evaluation of the manuscript and, when applicable, the review of a corrected version. The journal conducts extraordinary review rounds when the academic complexity of the manuscript, the nature of the observations received, or the consistency of the authors' response requires additional assessment before issuing a final editorial decision. Extraordinary review rounds apply in the following situations:

  • When the manuscript addresses novel research that requires strengthening the theoretical, methodological, conceptual, or empirical foundation before a final editorial decision.
  • When there are substantive discrepancies between the reviewers' assessments.
  • When the corrected version does not sufficiently address relevant peer-review observations.
  • When the modifications introduced by authors incorporate substantive changes that require a new specialized assessment.
  • When the editorial team identifies the need to verify the coherence between the changes made, the manuscript's arguments, and the journal's scientific criteria.

Extraordinary rounds do not guarantee manuscript acceptance. Their purpose is to ensure that the editorial decision is made based on a sufficient, rigorous, and coherent assessment.

The journal will inform authors when the manuscript is sent to an extraordinary review round. This communication will outline the editorial rationale for the new evaluation and the estimated timeframe for its completion.

If, upon the conclusion of an extraordinary review round, problems persist regarding scientific quality, methodological consistency, theoretical foundation, argumentative clarity, academic integrity, or insufficient attention to prior assessments, the journal will issue a rejection decision.

 

10. Confidentiality of the Process

Manuscripts submitted for evaluation, assessments, editorial communications, and information derived from the review process are treated as confidential information.

Reviewers shall not share, disclose, reproduce, distribute, or use for their own benefit or that of third parties the information contained in the evaluated manuscripts. Nor shall they directly contact authors during the review process.

Confidentiality is maintained before, during, and after the editorial process.

 

11. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers shall declare any conflict of interest that affects the objectivity, independence, or impartiality of their evaluation. Conflicts of interest are considered to include:

  • Personal, family, or professional relationships with the authors.
  • Recent academic collaboration.
  • Same institutional affiliation or membership in the same research group.
  • Direct academic rivalry.
  • Financial, commercial, institutional, or professional interests linked to the manuscript.
  • Any situation that influences the objective evaluation of the work.

When a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer shall communicate it to the editor and refrain from participating in the evaluation.

 

12. Reviewer Recognition and Appreciation

Ensayos Revista de Economía recognizes the academic work of reviewers as an essential contribution to the journal's scientific quality, editorial integrity, and strengthening.

The journal will issue certificates of recognition to reviewers who successfully complete the evaluation process of a manuscript. These certificates will be issued at the reviewer's request or in accordance with mechanisms defined by the editorial team, without disclosing confidential information about the manuscript, authors, or the assessment's content.

The journal will evaluate reviewers' performance based on the quality, timeliness, relevance, depth, and constructive nature of their evaluations. This assessment will help strengthen the reviewer pool and guide future evaluation invitations. The journal recognizes as good reviewing practices:

  • Issuing well-founded, clear, and respectful assessments.
  • Evaluating the manuscript using academic and ethical criteria.
  • Formulating useful observations to improve the quality of the work.
  • Meeting established review deadlines.
  • Timely declaration of conflicts of interest.
  • Preserving the confidentiality of the editorial process.
  • Maintaining professional communication with the editorial team.

The journal will avoid requesting new evaluations from reviewers who repeatedly delay submission deadlines, provide insufficiently substantiated assessments, make disrespectful observations, have undeclared conflicts of interest, or engage in practices contrary to the journal's Code of Ethics.

 

13. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence During Review

The use of generative artificial intelligence by reviewers, editors, and members of the editorial team is governed by the journal's Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.

Reviewers shall not upload, copy, transcribe, summarize, or share manuscripts, manuscript fragments, supplementary files, data, tables, figures, results, hypotheses, or information derived from the editorial process in external generative artificial intelligence tools or automated systems not authorized by the journal.

Peer review shall be carried out directly by the invited reviewer. Generative artificial intelligence shall not be used to substitute for the reviewer's academic judgment, to prepare the assessment, or to generate recommendations without direct human supervision and responsibility.

 

14. Final Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is the responsibility of the editor or the editorial team of Ensayos Revista de Economía. This decision considers the manuscript's alignment with the journal's focus and scope, the received assessments, the scientific quality of the work, the authors' response, compliance with editorial policies, and the Code of Ethics.

The journal accepts a manuscript, requests further modifications, sends it for re-review, or rejects it based on the results of the editorial process. The acceptance of a manuscript depends not solely on favorable assessments but on the editorial team's comprehensive evaluation based on the aforementioned criteria.

 

15. Integrity of the Evaluation Process

Ensayos Revista de Economía suspends, invalidates, or restarts the review process when it identifies indications of undisclosed conflict of interest, manipulation of the editorial process, improper use of academic identity, fraudulent review, breach of confidentiality, plagiarism, simultaneous submission, improper use of generative artificial intelligence, or any practice contrary to the journal's editorial policies or Code of Ethics.

The journal promotes an evaluation process that is transparent, confidential, independent, and oriented toward strengthening the scientific quality of published manuscripts.