Peer Review System

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Revista Científica Multidisciplinar NEXA are subject to an academic and editorial evaluation process designed to ensure originality, relevance, timeliness, scientific rigor, methodological quality, contribution to knowledge, and compliance with the journal's editorial standards.

Receipt of a manuscript does not imply a commitment to publication. Acceptance of manuscripts is subject to compliance with the journal's editorial policies, the outcome of the peer-review process, and the final editorial decision.

1. Preliminary Editorial Review

Once a manuscript has been received, the editorial team conducts a preliminary review to verify:

  • Consistency of the manuscript with the journal's aims, scope, and thematic areas.
  • Compliance with NEXA's required structure and formatting guidelines.
  • Compliance with the citation and bibliographic reference standards adopted by the journal.
  • Appropriate inclusion and presentation of tables, figures, equations, and other supplementary elements.
  • Compliance with authorship, institutional affiliation, and other required metadata.
  • Originality of the manuscript and compliance with the journal's anti-plagiarism policy.
  • Compliance with the ethical and editorial principles established by the journal.

If issues requiring correction are identified, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for the necessary revisions before proceeding to academic peer review.

The preliminary editorial review has an estimated duration of up to two (2) weeks.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary editorial review are submitted for academic evaluation under a double-blind peer review system.

Under this model, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors, thereby safeguarding the independence, impartiality, and confidentiality of the evaluation process.

As a general rule, each manuscript is assigned to two reviewers with relevant knowledge and expertise in the subject area of the submission. Whenever possible, reviewers will be external and independent from the authors and must not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of the evaluation.

Reviewers assess, as applicable, the manuscript's originality, relevance, theoretical foundation, methodology, presentation and analysis of results, discussion, conclusions, bibliographic references, scientific contribution, and overall academic quality.

3. Review Outcomes

Upon completion of the evaluation, each reviewer submits an academic report containing one of the following recommendations:

  • Acceptable for publication.
  • Acceptable with suggested revisions.
  • Acceptable with mandatory revisions.
  • Not acceptable for publication.

When revisions are required, the authors will receive the corresponding comments and must submit a revised version of the manuscript.

The editorial team will verify whether the requested revisions have been adequately addressed. When necessary, the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for an additional round of evaluation.

4. Final Editorial Decision

The reports issued by the reviewers constitute academic recommendations that inform the editorial decision-making process.

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor or the competent editorial authority of Revista Científica Multidisciplinar NEXA, taking into consideration the reviewers' reports, the revisions made by the authors, compliance with the journal's editorial policies, and its scientific quality standards.

When substantial discrepancies arise between reviewers' recommendations, the editorial team may request an evaluation by a third reviewer before issuing the final decision.

The editorial decision will be formally communicated to the authors and must be recorded in the corresponding editorial file.

5. Evaluation Timeline

The preliminary editorial review has an estimated duration of up to two (2) weeks.

The academic peer-review stage has an estimated duration of four (4) weeks.

Therefore, the overall evaluation process has an estimated duration of approximately six (6) weeks, excluding the time required by authors to complete requested revisions.

These timeframes may vary depending on the availability of qualified reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of revision rounds required, and other circumstances inherent to the editorial process.

6. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received by the journal and all information generated during the evaluation process will be treated as confidential.

Reviewers may not use, disclose, reproduce, or share information contained in manuscripts under review prior to publication.

The identities of authors and reviewers will also be protected in accordance with the journal's double-blind peer-review system.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Individuals participating in the evaluation process must disclose any potential academic, professional, institutional, financial, or personal conflict of interest that could compromise their independence or impartiality.

When a conflict of interest may affect the objectivity of the evaluation, the reviewer must decline the assignment, and the editorial team will appoint another qualified reviewer.

8. Editorial Records and Traceability

The journal will maintain records of the principal actions associated with the editorial processing of each manuscript, including, as applicable, the date of receipt, preliminary editorial review, reviewer assignment, peer-review reports, revision requests, editorial decision, and publication date.

Published articles will display the corresponding editorial dates in accordance with the records maintained in each manuscript's editorial file.