Arbiters or expert peers are competent and specialized professionals in the subject area of each article published in Ciencia e Innovación en Salud. Their competence will depend on the following criteria, among others:

-They should have a Master's, Doctoral, or Post-doctoral degree.

-They should own scientific publications about research or studies performed within the health science area or related fields.

-They should not belong to the same institution as the author of the article.

If you are a professional and fulfill these criteria, you will be able to join the arbitration group of Ciencia e innovación en Salud, considering the following factors:



You may directly apply via OJS, following the register link, where you should enter all the necessary information for system access. In specific cases, arbiters receive an invitation letter from a journal editor to initiate a direct communication process. Platform registry is suggested regardless of the manner in which arbiters reach the journal.



All manuscripts are peer reviewed by at least two reviewers and, sometimes, three reviewers, who are experts in fields that specifically coincide with the journal subjects. Documents undergo a double-blind review process and should be fully publishable; journal manuscripts only based on a summary submission are not accepted. Reviewers are required to provide comments to authors in order to improve article content and style and other topics necessary for better article quality. 

Peer review

Responsible person: Editor

Average time: Seventy-two hours to choose evaluators, 2 weeks to confirm evaluating availability, and 2–3 weeks for evaluation. 

End point: Notify the author about the final decision (accepted, accepted but subject to changes, or rejected).


The decision committee members’ profile is consistent with the article to be reviewed.

In case of a conflicting decision, 2–3 evaluators may be chosen to make better use of time and to obtain a casting vote. The final decision is more precise when more people review an article.

Assessing the evaluators’ decision helps in identifying accurate evaluators and evaluators who deliver their recommendations on time.


Document adjustments

Responsible person: Author

Average time: Two weeks for document review and revisions.

End point: Submission of a new article to be presented before evaluators requested in the evaluation format.

Verifications: A new article is delivered in due time and manner.


Second peer review

Responsible person: Editor

Average time: Two to three weeks for evaluation.

End point: Notify the author about the final decision (accepted, accepted but subject to changes, or rejected). 

Verifications: A second review is only sent to those reviewers who requested have requested this in the decision form.

Assessing the evaluators’ decision helps in identifying accurate evaluators and evaluators who deliver their recommendations on time.

When a potential arbiter accepts to become an evaluator, the arbitration stage or process begins. If you become an arbiter, you will receive via email:

-A copy of the article: without author identification data to ensure a double-blind evaluation process, where, if needed, you may make specific comments in order to simplify the evaluation process.

-An article evaluation form: where all the criteria to be considered during the article evaluation process are recorded. This should be delivered with utmost attention. It is important to attentively dispatch the evaluation form together with your data and signature.

The following criteria should be considered when evaluating the article:

  1. The relationship (relevancy) between the article and the journal.
  2. Formal aspects of the article.
  3. Content or background aspects of the article: these criteria will be classified based on a scale ranging from “very good,” “good,” “fair,” to “poor”, with “nothing” being the lowest criterion.
  4. The general assessment criterion allows for a final decision based on a quantitative assessment with five (5) being the highest score and one (1) being the lowest. It is also accompanied by a qualitative assessment with descriptions, including acceptance of the article as it is, acceptance of the article along with some suggestions, possible acceptance of the article after extensive review, and rejection of the article.
  5. Finally, there will be a section for Conclusions and/or comments, where you are requested to briefly provide comments or suggestions to authors using a minimum of 50 words.


As an arbiter, you should always consider that:

  • Among your responsibilities, you should always keep the highest level of confidentiality regarding the information received once you have accepted a review.
  • Any conflicts of interest with the received article should be stated. Furthermore, you should declare yourself impaired and reject the review should any conflict exist.
  • You should provide an objective and respectably judgment about the quality of the evaluated article, making clear and accurate comments about the text and informing the editor about text inconsistencies that may infringe any research ethics standards, as well as cases of plagiarism.
  • Finally, you should deliver your assessment to Ciencia e Innovación en Salud in a timely manner.
  • Arbiters are usually responsible for judging the scientific quality of a given article in terms of its content, i.e., confirming its relevance, pertinence, and originality. This should being the fundamental criterion for its acceptance or rejection.

Following the arbitration process, the journal will send you a certificate for acknowledgement of your work via email, which may be used without restriction and represents a compliment from the journal for having collaborated and shared your time and experience along this scientific communication process. To receive this certificate, arbiters need to be duly registered on the OJS platform.