Double-blind peer review policy

Double-blind peer review policy

The evaluation system used by Terra Latinoamericana is external, confidential, and double-blind. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo external peer review. Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Committee based on their professional profile, academic qualifications, scientific expertise, and experience in the subject area.

Upon submission through the journal's OJS platform, manuscripts are initially screened by the Editorial Committee, which includes the Technical Editor, Associate Editor, Editor-in-Chief, and Associate Editors. During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for compliance with the Author Guidelines, formatting requirements, journal scope, and subject matter. Similarity screening is also conducted to identify potential plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

If a manuscript meets the journal's requirements, the Associate Editor or Editor-in-Chief assigns it to an Associate Editor according to the manuscript's subject area and the editor's expertise. The Associate Editor is responsible for selecting three independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The review process follows a double-blind model, in which neither the authors know the identity of the reviewers, nor the reviewers know the identity of the authors.

Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Associate Editor determines whether the manuscript should be accepted with minor revisions, accepted with major revisions, or rejected. When revisions are requested, authors must address all comments, and the Associate Editor evaluates whether the required changes have been satisfactorily implemented.

At Terra Latinoamericana, peer review aims to maximize the scientific quality of submitted manuscripts while safeguarding authors' rights to a rigorous, constructive, and transparent evaluation process. Peer review is conducted by active researchers and academics who are carefully selected according to strict standards of scientific excellence. The review process focuses on objective criteria regarding validity, originality, methodological soundness, and overall quality of the research.

The peer-review process is designed to be rigorous, fair, constructive, accountable, transparent, and efficient. Efficiency is enhanced by the OJS platform, which facilitates collaborative interaction among authors, reviewers, and the responsible Associate Editor. All submissions, without exception, are subject to the same rigorous review procedures.

Submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening for quality, formatting, originality, scope, plagiarism, and self-plagiarism. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they fail to meet the journal's editorial standards or fall outside its scope. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to three expert reviewers under the double-blind peer-review system.

Based on the reviewers' recommendations (at least two out of three reviewers), manuscripts may be accepted with minor revisions, accepted with major revisions, or rejected. When revisions are requested, authors must address the comments and submit a revised version for further evaluation. Reviewers may be invited to reassess the revised manuscript to verify that the requested changes have been adequately addressed.

Terra Latinoamericana maintains strict quality standards for manuscripts and the peer-review process through clearly defined evaluation criteria. Manuscripts are accepted when they meet these standards and rejected when they do not. The peer-review process assesses the scientific value and validity of submitted studies through rigorous quality controls.

Associate Editors are responsible for managing editorial decisions and may recommend rejection at any stage of the review process. They make recommendations regarding acceptance and communicate their decisions to the Editor-in-Chief. The Format Editor and Technical Editors may also reject manuscripts that, due to an oversight, were not previously rejected, thereby ensuring that peer review remains rigorous and that published articles meet the journal's quality standards.

Transparent review. To ensure objective and rigorous evaluations, reviewer identities remain anonymous throughout the review process. The identity of the Associate Editor remains visible during the editorial process. This model promotes constructive reviews and encourages accountability among editors and reviewers by providing rigorous comments aimed at improving the quality of the final publication.

Rigorous review. Terra Latinoamericana provides a standardized review questionnaire through its OJS platform to facilitate systematic and consistent manuscript evaluation. Reviews focus exclusively on the quality of both the research and the manuscript, with the objective of providing constructive feedback that improves the final publication. This process ensures fair, timely, comprehensive, and comparable evaluations.

Acceptance criteria. The Editorial Committee and reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to fundamental scientific publication standards, including clear and appropriate language and presentation; compliance with the journal's editorial and ethical policies; proper formatting tables, figures, and supplementary materials; transparent and scientifically sound methodology; appropriate experimental design and statistical analyses; adequate description of study materials and methods; sufficient, relevant, and up-to-date references; a clearly defined hypothesis or research question; a solid theoretical framework supporting the study.

Rejection criteria. A manuscript may be rejected at any stage prior to publication, including during initial screening, peer review, final validation, or even after acceptance if serious concerns are identified. Common reasons for rejection include: Failure to comply with the journal's editorial or ethical policies; lack of originality, duplicate publication, plagiarism, or self-plagiarism; language quality insufficient to permit rigorous peer review; methodological flaws, including inappropriate experimental design or statistical analyses; failure to present a scientifically valid hypothesis or research question; conclusions that are not supported by the objectives, results, or analyses presented; references that do not adequately represent the current state of knowledge or that rely excessively on inaccessible or highly localized sources; violations of recognized ethical standards, including those related to privacy protection, human participants, animal welfare, or other ethical concerns; evidence suggesting fabricated or falsified data, unreliable results, or fraudulent manipulation of tables, figures, or images.

 

Evaluation forms

The following forms are used during the peer review process. The first form corresponds to the first round of peer review, while the second form corresponds to the second peer review, that is, the evaluation of the revised version of the manuscript. These forms are constantly reviewed and modified as needed.

 

Peer Review Evaluation Form

(First Round of Peer Review)

Manuscript Information

Manuscript ID: ______________________

Manuscript Title: ____________________________________________

Date of Review: ______________________

Subject Area: ____________________________________________

Reviewer Declaration

Before beginning this review, I declare that:

☐ I have no conflict of interest regarding the authors, their institutions, or the funding sources related to this manuscript.

☐ I will maintain the confidentiality of all information contained in this manuscript.

☐ I will provide an objective, impartial, and scientifically based evaluation.

☐ I will not share this manuscript with any third party without prior authorization from the Editor.

☐ If I use artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve the wording or organization of my review comments, I will personally verify all content and assume full responsibility for the final evaluation submitted.

I. Overall Scientific Evaluation

Please evaluate each criterion using the following scale:

5 = Excellent

4 = Good

3 = Acceptable

2 = Poor

1 = Very Poor

Criterion	5	4	3	2	1
Originality of the research	○	○	○	○	○
Scientific significance	○	○	○	○	○
Relevance to Terra Latinoamericana	○	○	○	○	○
Contribution to scientific knowledge	○	○	○	○	○
Timeliness of the topic	○	○	○	○	○

II. Manuscript Evaluation

1. Title

Does the title accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?

○ Excellent

○ Good

○ Acceptable

○ Poor

Comments

2. Abstract

Does the abstract adequately summarize the objectives, methodology, principal findings, and conclusions?

○ Excellent

○ Good

○ Acceptable

○ Poor

Comments

3. Introduction

Please indicate whether the Introduction:

☐ Provides adequate scientific background.

☐ Clearly justifies the study.

☐ Defines the research problem.

☐ States the objectives and/or hypotheses clearly.

Comments

4. Materials and Methods

Please evaluate the following aspects.

Criterion	Yes	Partially	No	Not Applicable
Experimental design	○	○	○	○
Experimental unit	○	○	○	○
Number of replicates	○	○	○	○
Variables evaluated	○	○	○	○
Methodological description	○	○	○	○
Reproducibility of the study	○	○	○	○
Statistical analyses	○	○	○	○

Comments

5. Results

Please evaluate the following aspects.

Criterion	Excellent	Good	Acceptable	Poor
Clarity	○	○	○	○
Organization	○	○	○	○
Scientific consistency	○	○	○	○
Quality of data analysis	○	○	○	○

Comments

6. Discussion and Conclusions

Are the results appropriately interpreted?

○ Yes

○ Partially

○ No

Are the findings adequately compared with recent literature?

○ Yes

○ Partially

○ No

Are the conclusions fully supported by the results?

○ Yes

○ Partially

○ No

Comments

7. Tables and Figures

Please evaluate the following aspects.

Criterion	Excellent	Good	Acceptable	Poor
Overall quality	○	○	○	○
Clarity	○	○	○	○
Scientific relevance	○	○	○	○
Self-explanatory presentation	○	○	○	○

Comments

8. References

Please indicate whether:

☐ The references are sufficient.

☐ The references are current.

☐ The references are relevant.

☐ Important references have been omitted.

Comments

III. Research Integrity

Please indicate whether you identify any of the following concerns.

Criterion	Yes	No	Unable to Determine
Possible plagiarism	○	○	○
Possible self-plagiarism	○	○	○
Possible data manipulation	○	○	○
Possible image manipulation	○	○	○
Ethical concerns	○	○	○

If applicable, please explain.

IV. Comments to the Authors

Major Comments

Please list only those issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

1.  

2.  

3.  

Minor Comments

Please list comments related to style, presentation, grammar, wording, or minor scientific clarifications.

1.  

2.  

3.  

V. Confidential Comments to the Editor

(The information provided in this section will not be shared with the authors.)

VI. Editorial Recommendation

Please select one recommendation.

☐ Accept without revision

☐ Accept after minor revisions

☐ Reconsider after major revisions

☐ Reject

VII. Additional Questions for the Editor

1. In your opinion, does this manuscript make a sufficient scientific contribution to merit publication in Terra Latinoamericana?

○ Yes

○ No

○ Yes, after revision

2. Would you be willing to review the revised version of this manuscript if requested?

○ Yes

○ No

Please briefly explain your answer.

 

Second Round Peer Review Evaluation Form

(Evaluation of the Revised Manuscript)

Manuscript Information

Manuscript ID: ______________________

Manuscript Title: ______________________________________

Date of Review: ______________________

Instructions to the Reviewer

The purpose of this second-round review is to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the comments and recommendations made during the first round of peer review.

Please review:

1. The revised manuscript.
2. The author’s response letter.
3. The modifications introduced in the revised version.

A complete re-evaluation of the manuscript is not required unless new scientific concerns arise.

I. Evaluation of the Authors' Response

1. Did the authors respond clearly and systematically to all comments raised during the first review?

○ Yes

○ Partially

○ No

Comments

2. When recommendations were not followed, did the authors provide adequate scientific justification?

○ Yes

○ Partially

○ No

○ Not applicable

Comments

II. Evaluation of the Revisions

Please indicate the extent to which the previous comments have been addressed.

Item	Fully Addressed	Partially Addressed	Not Addressed	Not Applicable
Objectives and hypotheses	○	○	○	○
Introduction	○	○	○	○
Materials and Methods	○	○	○	○
Experimental design	○	○	○	○
Statistical analyses	○	○	○	○
Results	○	○	○	○
Discussion	○	○	○	○
Conclusions	○	○	○	○
Tables and Figures	○	○	○	○
References	○	○	○	○

Comments

III. Quality of the Revised Manuscript

Please evaluate the revised version.

Criterion	Excellent	Good	Acceptable	Poor
Scientific quality	○	○	○	○
Clarity of presentation	○	○	○	○
Organization	○	○	○	○
Methodological soundness	○	○	○	○
Quality of the authors' responses	○	○	○	○

IV. Remaining Issues

Do significant issues remain before publication?

○ No

○ Yes, minor issues

○ Yes, major issues

If yes, please describe them.

V. Comments for the Authors

Please list only those issues that still need to be addressed.

VI. Confidential Comments to the Editor

(This information will not be shared with the authors.)

VII. Recommendation to the Editor

Please select one recommendation.

☐ Accept.

☐ Accept after minor revisions.

☐ Request additional revisions.

☐ Request another round of peer review.

☐ Reject.

VIII. Final Questions

In your opinion, have all scientifically relevant issues been satisfactorily addressed?

○ Yes

○ No

Do you recommend reviewing the manuscript again after the author submits a revised version?

○ Yes

○ No

Final Comments

 

Peer review timeliness policy

The reviewers of Terra Latinoamericana are committed to completing manuscript evaluations within the established review deadlines and to respecting the timelines defined by the journal's editorial process.

If a reviewer determines that they do not possess the necessary expertise to adequately evaluate an assigned manuscript, or if they are unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe, they are expected to promptly notify the journal through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

Such notification is automatically received by the Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editor responsible for the manuscript under review. The Editorial Team will then proceed with the assignment of an alternative reviewer to ensure the continuity, quality, and efficiency of the peer-review process.

Through this policy, Terra Latinoamericana seeks to promote timely, rigorous, and efficient peer review while maintaining the high scientific and ethical standards expected of an international scholarly journal indexed in major bibliographic databases.

The journal recognizes that the timely completion of peer review is essential for the rapid dissemination of scientific knowledge and therefore encourages reviewers to communicate promptly regarding their availability, expertise, and capacity to complete assigned reviews.