Proceso de Evaluación
Evaluation Process
URBEāctĭo. Journal of Urbanism, Territory, and Architecture —published by the Postgraduate and Research Section of the School of Engineering and Architecture Tecamachalco (ESIATEC) at the Instituto Politecnico Nacional (IPN)— has established a rigorous and transparent evaluation process to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific relevance of the contributions it publishes. This process is structured in three sequential phases and is grounded in the principles of objectivity, confidentiality, and respect for academic ethics, in accordance with the best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
1.- Preliminary evaluation by the Editorial Team All manuscripts received undergo an initial review by the Editorial Team. The aim of this phase is to verify compliance with the minimum requirements for proceeding to external evaluation. The evaluation criteria at this stage are:
- Alignment with scope and themes: Verification that the manuscript falls within the journal's thematic areas, as described in the "About the Journal" section.
- Originality and unpublished status: Confirmation that the work is original, has not been previously published, and is not simultaneously under review by another publication.
- Formal compliance: Review to ensure the manuscript adheres to the Author Guidelines regarding formatting, length, and citation style (APA 7th edition or later). ·
Similarity detection: During this phase, the manuscript is subjected to plagiarism and similarity detection tools to identify potential originality issues.
If the manuscript fails to meet any of these criteria, the Editorial Team may reject it outright, notifying the author of the reasons for the decision. Should the manuscript require minor adjustments before proceeding to the next stage, the author may be asked to make preliminary corrections and will have five business days to resubmit the revised version.
2.- External Peer Review (Double-Blind)
Manuscripts that pass the preliminary assessment are sent to external academics for evaluation under a double-blind review process. This system ensures that neither the authors know the identity of the reviewers nor the reviewers know the identity of the authors, thereby guaranteeing the objectivity and impartiality of the assessment.
- Selection of reviewers: The Editorial Team selects at least two expert reviewers in the manuscript's subject area—preferably external to the publishing entity and with no conflicts of interest regarding the authors or the institution. Reviewers are chosen from a panel of national and international collaborators.
- Evaluation criteria: Reviewers provide an assessment based on the following criteria: originality, methodological rigor, theoretical soundness, relevance of the contribution, clarity of exposition, appropriateness of sources, and contribution to the disciplinary debate.
- Timeframes: Reviewers have a maximum of four weeks to submit their assessment. If a reviewer cannot meet this deadline, they will be asked to request an extension, or a replacement will be sought.
- Confidentiality: Both the reviewers and the Editorial Team commit to maintaining strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the data, arguments, and interpretations contained therein until its official publication.
- Conflicts of interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the invitation to review. Should a conflict be identified subsequently, the Editorial Team will appoint a new reviewer.
3.- Review Outcome and Final Decision
Once the reviewers' reports have been received, the Editorial Team analyzes the recommendations and makes a final decision regarding the manuscript. The possible decisions are:
- Accepted: The article is accepted in its current form and proceeds to the copyediting and layout stage.
- Accepted with minor revisions: The article is accepted subject to minor adjustments. The author has 10 business days to make the changes and resubmit the revised version.
- Rejected: The article does not meet the quality or scientific rigor standards required by the journal. The author will be notified of the reasons for the decision.
Handling conflicting reviews: In the event that the two reviewers issue opposing recommendations (one favorable and one unfavorable), the Editorial Team may:
- Request a third review from an additional reviewer.
- Make an editorial decision based on the arguments of both reviewers and the Editorial Team's judgment, provided it is soundly justified.
Appeals: Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision. The appeal procedure is outlined in the URBEāctĭo Code of Ethics.
Notification: The author will receive formal notification of the decision, accompanied by the reviewers' reports (anonymized) and, in the event of rejection, a clear explanation of the reasons.
4.- Process tracking
Authors can track the status of their manuscript via the URBEāctĭo OJS platform. Any further inquiries may be directed to the Editorial Team via the contact email address urbeactio_esiatec@ipn.mx
