For reviewers
Guidelines for manuscript reviewers
Manuscript review process
Editorial procedures and peer review
Blind Peer review
Once a manuscript passes the initial checks, it will be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer review. A double-blind peer review process is applied, where the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. In the case of regular submissions, the in-house assistant editors will invite experts, including recommendations from an academic editor.
Potential reviewers suggested by the authors may also be considered. Reviewers should not have published with any of the co-authors during the last five years and should not currently work or collaborate with any of the institutions of the co-authors of the submitted manuscript.
Optional "open" peer review
The journal operates a peer review; in the social science section optional open review is available: authors have the option of publishing all review reports and editorial decisions along with their manuscript. In addition, reviewers can sign their review, i.e. identify themselves in the published review reports. Authors may alter their choice for open review at any time prior to publication, however, once the document has been published, changes will only be made at the discretion of the section editor and general editor. We encourage authors to use this opportunity as evidence of the rigorous process employed in publishing their research. To ensure impartial arbitration, the names of the arbitrators will be disclosed only if the arbitrators agree to do so, and after a document has been accepted for publication.
Editorial decision and review
All articles, reviews and communications published in MDPI journals go through the peer review process and receive at least two reviews. The editor-in-chief will communicate the decision of the section editor, who will refer it to the peer reviewers, who must issue one of the following criteria, which will be one of the following
- Publishable (Acceptance of Submission).
- Publish after minor corrections (Publishable with modifications).
- Correct manuscript and resubmit.
All reviewers' comments must be answered point by point. When authors disagree with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response.
The declaration of conflicts of interest (DCI) is a tool that makes potential CI transparent, within the framework of a defined set of good practices that improve the quality of research.
The Editorial Committee of the REVISTA CIENCIA ECUADOR must declare annually its potential conflicts of interest with the journal's subject matter. If these conflicts are related to the subject matter of an article, these editors should not accept the management of the article. In each article it will be mentioned which editor/s have managed each article.
For each article assigned to external reviewers, a statement of conflict of interest in relation to the subject matter is requested during the peer review process. If there are conflicts of interest with the topic, the reviewers must inform the editors and avoid their participation in the evaluation of the article.
Common reasons for refusing to participate in peer review may include but are not limited to: working in the same institution as an author, currently or recently collaborating with an author, having published with an author within the last 5 years, having shared scholarships with an author, having a personal relationship with an author (i.e. friend, spouse, family member, mentor).
