Reviewer Guidelines

Ensayos Revista de Economía recognizes the work of reviewers as an essential component for guaranteeing the scientific quality, academic integrity, and continuous improvement of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

These guidelines complement the Peer Review Policy and offer practical guidance for preparing rigorous, objective, respectful, and useful review reports for authors and editors.

1. Before Accepting the Review

Before accepting an invitation to evaluate a manuscript, the reviewer shall confirm that:

They have expertise in the manuscript's subject matter.
They have sufficient time to issue a review report within the indicated deadline.
They have no conflicts of interest.
They agree to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the editorial process.
They can conduct the evaluation with independence, objectivity, and academic rigor.

When the reviewer is unable to conduct the evaluation, they shall promptly inform the editorial team. If considered pertinent, they may suggest alternative specialists.

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for evaluation are confidential documents. Reviewers shall not share, distribute, reproduce, cite, use, or discuss their content with third parties without the editorial team's express authorization.

Information obtained during the review process may not be used for the benefit of oneself or third parties. Confidentiality is maintained before, during, and after the editorial process.

3. Conflicts of Interest

The reviewer shall declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity, independence, or impartiality of their evaluation. Conflicts of interest include, among others:

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

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

4. Criteria for Preparing the Review Report

The review report shall evaluate the scientific quality, thematic relevance, originality, methodological rigor, argumentative consistency, and academic integrity of the manuscript. The evaluation shall consider, depending on the nature of the work, the following aspects:

Correspondence with the journal's focus and scope.
Originality and relevance of the contribution.
Clarity of the research problem, objective, and academic contribution.
Relevance and timeliness of the theoretical foundation.
Methodological, conceptual, or analytical 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.

5. Writing Comments

The reviewer's comments shall be clear, well-founded, respectful, and oriented toward improving the manuscript's quality. The review report shall:

Identify strengths and weaknesses of the work.
Formulate specific and verifiable observations.
Distinguish between minor adjustments and substantive modifications.
Avoid personal disqualifications or unsupported judgments.
Clearly explain the academic reasons for the issued recommendation.

When the reviewer suggests modifications, they shall precisely indicate which aspects require correction, expansion, reorganization, or justification.

6. Editorial Recommendation

Upon completing the evaluation, the reviewer shall issue an editorial recommendation according to the options established by the journal:

Accept without modifications.
Accept with minor modifications.
Re-evaluate after major modifications.
Reject.

The reviewer's recommendation constitutes an academic input for the editorial process. The final decision rests with the editorial team of Ensayos Revista de Economía, under the direction of the Editor-in-Chief.

7. Detection of Ethical Problems

If, during the review, the evaluator identifies potential ethical issues, they shall inform the editorial team through the journal's official channels. These problems may include:

Indications of plagiarism or unjustified textual similarity.
Redundant publication.
Simultaneous submission.
Manipulation of data, results, images, or evidence.
Undeclared conflict of interest.
Inappropriate use of third-party sources, data, or materials.
Unjustified, excessive, or coercive citations.
Improper use of generative artificial intelligence.

The reviewer shall not directly contact the authors nor conduct external investigations that compromise the confidentiality of the process.

8. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Peer review shall be carried out directly by the invited reviewer. Reviewers shall not upload, copy, transcribe, summarize, or share manuscripts, fragments, supplementary files, data, tables, figures, results, or information derived from the editorial process into external generative artificial intelligence tools or automated systems not authorized by the journal.

Generative artificial intelligence does not substitute for the reviewer's academic judgment nor shall it be used to prepare the review report, determine the editorial recommendation, or automatically evaluate the scientific quality of the manuscript.

9. Communication with the Journal

All communication related to the manuscript shall be conducted through the editorial platform or the journal's official channels.

Reviewers shall not directly contact the authors during the evaluation process. Any questions, clarifications, conflicts of interest, technical difficulties, or ethical situations shall be communicated to the editorial team.

10. Good Review Practices

The journal recognizes as good review practices: