Peer Review

Editorial review

The authors who submit an article for possible publication in Mundo Nano should send —complete and in their final version— the documents indicated in Submission guidelines,

https://ceiich.unam.mx/wp-content/uploads/Submission-guidelines.pdf

as well as the originality form available at:

https://ceiich.unam.mx/wp-content/uploads/Statement-letter-of-originality-and-non-simultaneous-submission.docx

Once the editorial team validates that the submission meets all the requirements, the text will be sent to editorial review, which comprises the following stages:  

  1. Accredit a revision using software IThenticate, approved by the Editorial Committee, for plagiarism detection, only after this will it be possible to go on to the following stages of the editorial review.
  2. It will be verified that the submitted text correlates with the focus and scope of the journal. Woks that do not explicitly regard the nano aspect as a relevant component will not be considered.
  3. It will be verified that the text meets each and every indication as stated in requirements for manuscript submissionand requirements for manuscript delivery as well as guidelines for authors.
  4. It will be verified that the reported bibliography is relevant and updated and that it is duly listed following the Chicago citation style, see: 

    http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html

  5. In accordance with the editorial policy guidelines, approved by the Editorial Committee, priority will be given to texts whose bibliography is electronically managed and with active hyperlinks to the corresponding DOI, when applicable.

Once the submitted article accredits the editorial review, the corresponding author will be formally notified of the registration and beginning of the academic review process.

Academic review

The articles must favorably accredit the process of academic review which will be performed under the modality of double-blind peer review, in which the identity of both authors and reviewers will be anonymous, to do so the following guidelines will be taken into account:  

  1. The articles that accredit the editorial review will be sent to academic experts in the same disciplinary and thematic area as the submitted text. The reviewers will be selected from the referee panel —composed of specialists from national and international institutions— who will comment on the relevance and academic quality of the submitted text and will rule on the feasibility to publish the text in question.
  2. The reviewers will be in charge of revising and analyzing the academic, theoretical and methodological relevance of each and every article assigned to them. They will be responsible for revising the explicit presence of a theoretical-methodological section, as well as its congruency with the field of studies, coherence between academic output and relevance of findings, and also the up-to-dateness and suitability of the bibliography resorted to.
  3. All the texts will be sent to three experts —ascribed to an institution other than the authors’— who will express their comments. In case of discrepancy between reviews, a third reviewer will be asked to resolve the ruling.
  4. Finally, on the basis of the reviewers’ recommendations, the decision of the editors of Mundo Nano will be: 

    a. Recommend its publication without modifications.

    b. Recommend its publication with minor changes, which do not make it necessary a second review by the referees.

    c. Condition its publication on making major changes, which makes it necessary a new revision by the referees. This process may repeat up to three rounds, if upon reaching this point the document is not recommended for publication yet, it will be rejected with no option to resend it.

    d. Publication is not recommended.

  5. For a text to be approved for publication it is indispensable that, at least, two of the three rulings are positive. 
  6. The editors will ensure, in all cases, that the reviews delivered to the authors have solid arguments to support the editorial decision.
  7. The results of the editorial review process will be unappealable in all cases.
  8. In case of observations to the articles, the authors will have a 15-natural-day deadline to send the editor-in-chief the new version of the work. Should this deadline not be met, the document will start the process afresh.
  9. The time for the document to be sent to review will be dependent on the number of articles in the waiting list. The referees, upon receiving the article, will have four weeks to perform the review and deliver the result.
  10. The accepted documents will start the edition process (proofreading, metadata marking, layout, etc.), to later be included in the corresponding fascicle, according to the decision of the editors in charge.
  11. Once the editorial process concludes (proofreading, metadata marking, layout, etc.), the preliminary version of the text will be sent to the authors for their final revision and approval. The authors will have a 3-natural-day deadline to deliver their approval, should they not comment within such deadline, the journal’s editorial coordination will assume the authors have tacitly approved.
  12. The assessment of the selected reviewers will follow the reviewing format available at: 

    https://ceiich.unam.mx/wp-content/uploads/Review-form-Mundo-Nano.docx