Standards for evaluation

  1. Criteria considered by the Technical Committee for accepting articles in the first filter and sending them for evaluation:
  2. Upon receipt of the manuscript, the Editor should verify that the document complies with the “Guidelines for Authors.” Authors must also send a letter of commitment specifying that their work is unpublished and is not being simultaneously evaluated in any other medium. Once these two requirements are met, a “Certificate of Receipt of Article” will be sent to the authors.
  3. Once the above is fulfilled, the Editor assesses the thematic relevance, quality, and methodology of the document. For this first stage of evaluation, the Editor of the journal will rely on the Technical Committee. If the Technical Committee considers that the article does not meet the minimum requirements for evaluation, a letter of rejection will be issued and signed by the Editor on behalf of the Technical Committee.
  4. The document must be quantitative.
  5. The document must be written in academic language and respect the scientific article structure.
  6. The document must have regional, national, or international relevance. Works whose applicability relates to particular cases will not be processed.
  7. The document can be written in Spanish or English.
  8. The document must not have any spelling mistakes.
  9. The first filter process should not take longer than four weeks from the reception date of the document.
  10. In addition to compliance with all of the above points, the Editor and the Technical Committee must approve the document. In this way, the evaluation process of the document can be continued.
  11. Standards for evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication in EconoQuantum after the first filter

Any article that has passed the first filter will be evaluated to ensure quality, originality, and thematic relevance. To this end, the following procedure shall be followed without exception:

  1. After passing the first filter, the article is sent, anonymously, to two reviewers attached to a scientific research institution, national or foreign. The reviewers must be, in all cases, recognized researchers specializing in the topic associated with the article.
  2. Reviewers must issue their qualified opinion within a period not exceeding four weeks, following the guidelines set out in the “Review Form.”
  3. If both reviewers give a favorable opinion, the article will be accepted for publication. If the opinion of both is unfavorable, the article will be rejected. In case of divided opinions, a third reviewer will be used, whose opinion will be decisive.
  4. In all cases, without exception, the opinion of the reviewers will be communicated anonymously to the authors of the article.
  5. In the case of articles that have received a favorable opinion from their reviewers, the authors undertake to incorporate the corrections of the reviewers; otherwise, the authors must state their reasons for not doing so in a letter to the Editor. The author must submit the corrected article accompanied by a letter specifying, point by point, how these observations were incorporated into the new version.
  6. The revised article and the response from the author(s) are then sent for final review to the Technical Committee or the reviewers themselves. If, in the opinion of all the reviewers, the new version satisfactorily incorporates the observations of the reviewer, the article will be submitted to the Editor, who will issue a “Letter of Acceptance.” Otherwise, the author will be asked for a second revision.
  7. The author(s) of an article accepted for publication must include a letter of release of publication and dissemination rights for their article.
  8. In the event of a favorable and a negative opinion, the document shall be sent to a third party. The third opinion will allow the Editor and the Technical Committee to continue the process (see point 5) or to definitively reject the document.