Standards for evaluators

Manuscripts submitted to reviewers are first evaluated by the Editorial Board, which determines whether to reject manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Failure to align with the journal’s established research areas.
• Failure to comply with the journal’s author guidelines.
• Violations of academic ethics (originality, plagiarism, etc.).
• Failure to follow the best practices established by the journal.
• Editorial nepotism.

The preliminary review conducted by the Editorial Board does not prevent the author from revising and resubmitting a rejected article.

Amazonía Peruana adheres to a double-blind peer-review process using ad hoc reviewers that is fast, fair, and ensures high-quality published articles. To this end, Amazonía Peruana needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a response time of approximately 4 weeks. Maintaining Amazonía Peruana as a high-quality journal depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and the ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts. We hope the information provided here will help make your work easier.

The reviews provided by Amazonía Peruana’s peer reviewers on manuscripts are invaluable in helping the editor-in-chief and the editorial board make their decisions. Peer review will help you stay up to date in your field and gain new insights that will enhance the quality and value of your own research.

In appreciation of your invaluable service to the journal Amazonía Peruana, your name will be included in our list of reviewers. Additionally, you will receive a certificate acknowledging your review of the journal’s manuscripts.

 

Peer Review Process

As part of the peer review process, Amazonía Peruana and all its reviewers respect the confidentiality of manuscripts submitted to the journal. In this regard, we do not share information about the manuscripts—including whether they have been received and are under review, their content and status in the review process, the reviewers’ critiques, and their final disposition—with anyone other than the authors and reviewers. We reject any requests from third parties to use manuscripts and reviews for legal proceedings.

In addition, reviewers are advised not to keep the manuscript for personal use and to destroy paper copies of manuscripts and delete electronic copies after submitting their reviews. It should also be noted that rejected manuscripts are retained in the editorial system as an archive. However, published manuscripts and all their content—including copies of the original submission, reviews, revisions, and correspondence—are retained indefinitely.

Each manuscript is sent to two or more reviewers as part of the double-blind peer review process. Reviewers will be asked to recommend whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. The acceptance or decline of a manuscript review must be explicit; declining a review will not have negative consequences for the reviewer.

 

Responsibilities of Reviewers

If the editor in charge of Amazonía Peruana has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

• Accept manuscripts that align with the reviewer’s academic expertise and profile.
• Review the manuscript critically but constructively and prepare detailed comments on the manuscript to help the authors improve their work.
• Review multiple versions of a manuscript as deemed necessary by the editor.
• Provide all required information within the established deadlines.
• Make recommendations to the editor regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication in the journal.
• Disclose to the editor any potential conflicts of interest regarding the authors or the content of a manuscript you are asked to review.
• Report potential research misconduct.
• Suggest alternative reviewers if you are unable to review the manuscript for any reason.
• Treat the manuscript as a confidential document.
• Make no use of the work described in the manuscript.
• Do not communicate directly with the authors if you can identify them in any way.
• Do not reveal your identity to the authors.
• Do not pass the assigned manuscript on to another reviewer.
• Ensure that the manuscript is of high quality and original.
• Inform the editor if you discover that the assigned manuscript is under consideration by any other publication of which you are aware.
• Write a comment on the publication related to the reviewed manuscript.
• The reviewer’s decisions and opinions are independent of the editors’ views.
• The reviewer agrees to provide comments directed at the authors and the editor.

 

What should be evaluated when reviewing a manuscript?

• Novelty
• Scientific reliability
• Originality
• Contribution of new insights to the existing field of study
• Ethical considerations
• Structure and relevance of the submitted article
• References provided to support the content
• Grammar, punctuation, and spelling
• Scientific misconduct

 

Ethical Guidelines

• The reviewer shall not form an opinion about the manuscript based on any type of discrimination (racial, political, ideological, religious, or cultural).
• The reviewer may not use data or information obtained from the manuscript for personal gain.
• The reviewer must maintain the confidentiality of the data or information contained in the manuscript.
• Reviewers must not evaluate a manuscript if there is a potential conflict of interest.
• Reviewers may not participate in the evaluation of manuscripts if they are researching or working on a similar topic or are an integral part of the research.
• Reviewers must be constructive and clear in the comments they provide during the evaluation.