The referees or expert peers are qualified and specialized professionals in the subject area of each of the articles postulated to Ciencia e Innovación en Salud. Its suitability will depend, among others, on the following criteria: 

- Must have a Master's, Doctorate or Postdoctoral degree. 

- Must have scientific publications with research or studies in the area of health Sciences and related  various fields. 

-It must not have the same institutional affiliation as the author of the article. 

By meeting these criteria you as a professional can access to be part of the group of peer reviewers of Ciencia e Innovación en Salud, taking into account the following considerations:



This application can be made directly from the OJS (open journal system), following the register link, where you will enter the information required to access the system. On specific occasions, the arbitrators receive an invitation letter from the editor of the journal and initiate a direct communication process. Regardless of how the arbitrator arrives at the journal is suggested to register on the platform.



All journal manuscripts are peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers, and usually three reviewers, experts in fields specifically matching the journal topics. Papers are reviewed, double-blind, in full publishable form; no journal manuscripts are accepted based only upon submission of an abstract. Reviewers are required to provide the author with comments intended to improve the content, style, and other issues which should improve the quality of the article.

 Peer Review

Responsible: Editor

Average time: 72 hours to choose evaluators, 2 weeks to check availability to evaluate, 2 to 3 weeks to evaluate.

Ends: Communication to the Author on the opinion (accepted, accepted subject to changes, not publishable)


The profile of the members of the opinion committee has a profile similar to the article they will review.

You can choose from 2 to 3 referees to optimize times in case there is a ruling that is contrary, and have a jump-off. The more eyes see an article, the more accurate the judgment will be.

Evaluating the opinion of the evaluators helps identify those who are precise in their recommendations and deliver on time.


Document settings

Responsible: Author

Average time: 2 weeks review and adjustments to the document.

Ends: Delivery of a new document to send to the evaluators who defined it in the evaluation format.

Checks: The new article is delivered in a timely manner.

Second peer review

Responsible: Editor

Average time: 2 to 3 weeks to evaluate.

Ends: Communication to the Author on the opinion (accepted, accepted subject to changes, not publishable)

Checks:  It is sent to the second review only to the reviewers who indicated it in the opinion format.

Evaluating the opinion of the evaluators helps identify those who are precise in their recommendations and deliver on time.

As soon as the possible arbitrator accepts to be an evaluator, the arbitration stage or process begins. As an arbitrator you will receive by mail:

-A copy of the article: without identifying data of the authors, to guarantee the double-blind evaluation process: in which you can make specific comments that facilitate your evaluation process, if you wish.

-An article evaluation format: where the criteria to be taken into account in the evaluation process of the article in question are registered and which must be carefully completed. It is very important to complete the evaluation form with your data and signature.

The criteria to be taken into account for the evaluation of the article are:

1. Criteria on the relation (relevance) of the article with the magazine

2. Criteria on formal aspects of the article

3. Criteria on aspects of content or substance of the article: these will be qualified taking into account a scale that goes from the assessment very well, well, regular, little until reaching nothing as the lowest criterion

4. General assessment criteria will allow you to offer a final opinion under a quantitative assessment: with a rating of five (5) as the highest to one (1) as the lowest. Accompanied by a qualitative assessment: with a description that goes from accepting the article as it is, accepting the article with some suggestions, the article could be accepted but with a wide revision; Until, not accept.

5. Finally you will find a space for Conclusions and / or comments: where you are asked to present your comments or suggestions very succinctly to the authors in a minimum of 50 words

As an arbitrator, always bear in mind that:

-Within its responsibilities, the arbitrator must maintain the highest degree of confidentiality with the information that is provided at the time of accepting the review.

-You must declare if you present a conflict of interest with the article you have received for publication, in which case you must declare yourself impeded and reject the revision.

-It must issue an objective and respectful judgment on the quality of the evaluated article making clear and precise comments on the text; inform the editor about inconsistencies in the evaluated text that violate the ethical norms of investigation as well as cases of plagiarism.

-You must finally deliver your valuation to Ciencia e Innovacion en Salud e in a timely manner.

-In general, the arbitrators are in charge of judging the scientific quality of the articles in terms of their content, verifying the relevance, relevance and originality of the postulated works to Psicogente being its fundamental criterion for its acceptance or rejection.



After the Arbitration process, the journal will send you a certificate of appreciation for your work, which can be freely used by you and shows the gratitude of the magazine for your collaboration in sharing your time and experience in this process of scientific disclosure. For the sending of this certificate it is necessary that the referee is duly registered in the OJS platform.