Editorial and submission evaluation process

Revista de Ciencias Médicas Torreón establishes a double-blind peer review process.

1. Receipt of Articles

Authors submit their manuscripts by email to javiermoranmartinez@uadec.edu.mx. In the near future, submissions will be made through the institutional OJS platform.

At this stage, the submission is verified to ensure that it complies with the formal requirements established in the author guidelines.

To initiate the editorial process, the submission must include:

  1. Journal section, according to the Author Guidelines.
  2. Participating authors: full names, academic degree, institutional affiliation, areas of knowledge, email address, role, mobile phone number, and ORCID.
  3. Length, according to the Author Guidelines.
  4. Structure, according to the Author Guidelines.
  5. Citation style: APA.
  6. Complete metadata.

The academic evaluation process is aimed at ensuring quality, scientific integrity, and compliance with ethical principles in the communication of knowledge. All contributions are submitted to a structured, transparent, and peer-reviewed evaluation procedure.

2. Review by the Editorial Team

The Editorial Committee conducts an initial review to assess the thematic relevance, academic coherence, and alignment of the manuscript with the journal’s editorial scope. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage or returned for preliminary adjustments.

All information contained in the manuscripts is considered confidential. Reviewers and members of the editorial team undertake not to disclose or use the content for purposes other than the evaluation process.

3. Ethical and Legal Statements

Authors must submit, on a mandatory basis:

• Declaration of originality of the manuscript, using the formats included in the Author Guidelines.
• Assignment or license of publication rights, using the formats included in the Author Guidelines.
• Declaration of absence or existence of conflicts of interest, using the formats included in the Author Guidelines.
• Compliance with ethical research principles, through an approval letter issued by a Bioethics Committee or CICUAL, as applicable.
• Declaration of authors and their contributions.

Authorship is recognized for those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, development, analysis, and interpretation of the work, as well as to the writing and approval of the final version.

4. Similarity Review and Use of Artificial Intelligence

The manuscript is submitted to similarity detection tools to identify possible matches with other published texts. Authors are also required to declare the use of artificial intelligence tools, when applicable, specifying their role in the manuscript preparation process.

If plagiarism, unjustified self-plagiarism, data manipulation, or any practice contrary to academic ethics is detected, the manuscript will be rejected. In serious cases, the journal may notify the corresponding institutions of affiliation.

5. Submission for Peer Review

Articles that pass the previous stages are sent for evaluation by at least two reviewers who are specialists in the field. The process is conducted under a double-blind peer review model.

The journal uses a double-blind peer review system, which means that the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process. Reviewers are selected based on their academic experience, scientific output, and absence of conflicts of interest.

If a conflict of interest is identified, the person involved will be removed from the editorial process and another reviewer will be appointed.

In the event of contradictory reviews, or when the editorial team considers it appropriate, the evaluation of a third reviewer will be requested.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers consider, among others, the following aspects:

  1. Originality and contribution to the field of study.
  2. Methodological rigor.
  3. Clarity of argumentation.
  4. Currency and relevance of sources.
  5. Structural coherence of the text.
  6. Academic and social relevance of the topic.

7. Review Timelines

The editorial process considers the following approximate timeframes:

• Initial editorial review: 1–3 weeks.
• Peer review: 2–8 weeks.
• Revision by authors: 2–4 weeks.

These timeframes may vary depending on the availability of reviewers and the complexity of the manuscript.

8. Types of Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports received, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accepted without modifications.
• Accepted with minor modifications.
• Accepted with major modifications.
• Rejected.

In cases involving modifications, authors must address the comments and submit a new version accompanied by a response letter to the reviewers’ reports.

The final publication decision rests with the editorial team, based on the reviewers’ reports received.

9. Corrections, Retractions, and Updates

The journal establishes mechanisms for the publication of corrections, clarifications, or retractions when errors or issues are detected after publication.

10. Open Access and Rights Policy

The journal operates under an open-access model, providing immediate, free, and permanent access to all its contents, with no consultation fees for readers and no processing or publication charges for authors.