Peer evaluation policy

All policies, procedures and general publication situations, including the decision and sequence of publication, are the responsibility of the Editorial Committee of the Vértice Universitario Magazine of the Interdisciplinary Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences.

The committee's decisions to accept or reject a document for publication are based solely on the relevance of the work, its originality, as well as the relevance of the study in relation to the editorial line.

All submitted works will be subject to double blind or anonymous arbitration. Communicating to the author(s) the opinion and observations received for their corresponding attention.

In accordance with our publication standards, the works may be: research reports, scientific articles and critical essays framed in Economic and Administrative Sciences and related sciences.

OPINION FORMAT

Dear reviewer: Please keep in mind that this evaluation format simply represents a guide to express your opinion or objective evaluation of the articles. If you do not wish to complete it in its entirety, remember that the main thing is to offer observations, recommendations or a course of action to the authors to improve their proposal or, in case of rejection, to put forward solid scientific and academic arguments to support your recommendation to the editors.

Please check each field, as you consider the characteristics of the article evaluated.

*The rating ranges between values 1-5, with 1 being the lowest rating and 5 being the highest. If you would like to expand on any of these points or offer more detailed comments on the article, please use the fields below.

**Depending on the type of article in question, its structure, contents and presentation may vary.

CHARACTERISTIC	ASSESSMENT
Originality*	1 2 3 4 5 Does not apply**
Interest and topicality of the topic*	1 2 3 4 5 Does not apply**
Contribution to knowledge*	1 2 3 4 5 Does not apply**
Theoretical and conceptual solidity*	1 2 3 4 5 Does not apply**
Relevance and mastery of the bibliography*	1 2 3 4 5 Does not apply**
Rigor in methodology*	1 2 3 4 5 Does not apply**
Analysis and discussion of results*	1 2 3 4 5 Does not apply**
Validity and relevance of conclusions*	1 2 3 4 5 Does not apply**
Clarity in its structure and wording*	1 2 3 4 5 Does not apply**

 

The item must be	Approved without modifications
	Approved with slight modifications
	Approved with profound modifications
Comments and/or suggestions	Rejected