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 Journal 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 thematic relevance of the article to the journal.

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 scientific articles  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

INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPOND TO THE EVALUATION CARRIED OUT BY THE REVIEWERS OF THE ARTICLE

Responses to the evaluation or changes requested by the reviewers must be responded to through a response letter for each reviewer.

It is necessary to identify each comment or question made by each reviewer.

The authors must provide a response or clarification, which must be highlighted below each comment, indicating the page, paragraph and line where what was stated has been incorporated or modified. In addition, the manuscript must be attached with the reviewers' corrections or suggestions incorporated. These changes must be highlighted in a different color or in track changes so that the reviewer can identify the incorporated changes.

EXAMPLE In this document, a response is provided to Reviewer A of the manuscript “…”

Reviewer comment A: You should incorporate more information into the introduction...

Response: We have incorporated as suggested more background into the introduction, page 1, paragraph 2, line 1-11. INTRODUCTION In recent years throughout the world the phenomenon of..... (Santamouris et al. 2015, Bustamante et al. 2011, Kolokotroni et al. 2006)...