The double-blind peer review process

Scientia et PRAXIS follows a double-blind peer review process, in accordance with international standards of editorial ethics and academic publishing. In this process, neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities, ensuring objectivity, impartiality, and academic rigor throughout the evaluation.

Each manuscript is evaluated by two external experts in the article’s subject area, who assess its theoretical soundness, methodology, results, and potential scientific contribution. Reviewers are selected from the journal’s national and international referee portfolio, with preference given to professor-researchers who are members of Mexico’s National System of Researchers (SNII–SECIHTI) or qualified scholars from abroad. The average review period for accepted articles is 90 days.

In the case of conflicting evaluations, the Editorial Board appoints a third adjudicating reviewer. The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Scientific Committee, makes the final editorial decision. All reviewers are carefully selected based on their academic background, subject matter expertise, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Editorial Process Stages

1. Submission and Initial Review

  • The article is received by the editorial office.

  • The Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editor conduct a format review, ensuring compliance with editorial guidelines (format, length, structure, etc.).

2. Content Analysis

  • The Editorial Board conducts an initial reading to evaluate the manuscript’s relevance, preliminary quality, and originality, including similarity checks using specialized tools like iThenticate.

  • A decision is made as to whether the article proceeds to peer review or is returned with feedback.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

  • The Associate Editor manages the process by selecting two external reviewers specialized in the article’s subject area.

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit reports with recommendations.

4. Feedback and Revisions

  • The Associate Editor communicates reviewer feedback to the author and requests revisions if necessary.

  • The revised manuscript is re-evaluated, preferably by the same reviewers.

5. Final Editorial Decision

  • If both reviewers approve, the article proceeds. In case of conflict, a third adjudicating reviewer is appointed.

  • The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, with support from the Scientific Committee.

6. Editing, Copyediting, and Layout

  • The Associate Editor oversees orthotypographic and stylistic editing.

  • The article is formatted into PDF and EPUB, and an inclusive audiovisual resource is integrated.

7. Publication and Indexing

  • The final article is published on the journal platform and submitted to academic databases and indexing systems.

Role of the Editorial Committee

  • The Editorial Board assists in preliminary evaluations, recommends reviewers, and suggests editorial themes.

  • The Scientific Committee contributes expert assessments, strengthens academic quality, and supports the journal’s intellectual identity.

Communication with Authors

  • The Associate Editor communicates editorial decisions to authors, including decision letters, reviewer reports, and certificates.

This comprehensive process ensures the scientific quality, transparency, and reliability of the articles published in Scientia et PRAXIS, in accordance with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), DOAJ, Latindex Catalog 2.0, and other international indexing standards.