About the editorial process

1.   Editorial Process Flowchart

This section outlines the steps your manuscript will follow when submitted to Antec, from submission to publication.

  1. Authors must submit their research articles through the journal’s OJS platform. To do so, they must create an account and upload all required documents, including the manuscript, images, figures, photographs, and the signed Author Forms document.
  2. All submissions will be screened using Turnitin, plagiarism detection software that compares the manuscript against a large database of sources in order to identify textual similarities, improper citations, and potential plagiarism. Antec accepts a maximum similarity index of 10%, excluding references and properly cited text. If the similarity exceeds 10%, the Turnitin report will be sent to the author so that the manuscript may be revised and resubmitted before proceeding to peer review.
  3. The editorial team will conduct an initial evaluation of the manuscript and determine whether it is: “Accepted,” “Accepted with Modifications,” or “Rejected.” Manuscripts containing grammatical errors or lacking coherence and cohesion will not be accepted. Authors are strongly encouraged to seek independent review from a beta reader prior to submission in order to correct any language issues.
  4. Manuscripts classified as “Accepted” or “Accepted with Modifications” will undergo copyediting. Comments and suggestions will be provided to the author, who must address them within a period not exceeding seven (7) business days.
  5. Accepted manuscripts will then proceed to peer review. A minimum of two specialists in the relevant field will evaluate the scientific article. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the corresponding professional or academic area. The review process will result in a formal evaluation report including comments, suggestions, or required corrections, issued within a maximum period of thirty (30) business days.
  6. Authors will receive the anonymized peer-review report. If the manuscript includes required revisions, reviewer comments will be provided so that the author may address them and resubmit the corrected version within seven (7) business days.
  7. Once the revised manuscript is returned to the editorial team, the changes will be reviewed. If no further modifications are required, the manuscript will proceed to layout editing and publication in the next issue.

Flujograma del proceso editorial Antec

2.  Evaluation Procedure

The Scientific Evaluation Policy establishes that all submitted articles undergo an initial editorial and ethical review (relevance assessment) conducted by members of the Editorial Committee (Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Assistant, Technical Assistant, and Committee members). This review verifies that the manuscript complies with the journal’s style and content guidelines for submission, including proper writing quality and adherence to formal requirements.

Additionally, it is verified that the manuscript is the result of a scientific research process, demonstrates an adequate level of bibliographic currency, presents sufficient analytical depth, and clearly defines the scope of the results and findings obtained. Compliance with copyright regulations and the journal’s ethical standards is also reviewed

 This evaluation includes, at minimum, verification of the following:

  • The manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s thematic areas.
  • The originality, novelty, and relevance of the topic addressed.
  • Compliance with formal submission requirements.
  • Acceptance of the publication conditions.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest and compliance with copyright and ethical regulations of the journal.

If the evaluation is favorable, the article is sent for scientific assessment by external reviewers under one of the journal’s peer-review models.

2.1. Peer-Review System

The journal establishes the double-blind external peer-review process as its standard review procedure. This review is conducted in accordance with section 2.3.5 of the Guidelines for Conducting Scientific Academic Activities described in the National Code of Scientific Integrity issued by CONCYTEC.

A minimum of two subject-matter specialists evaluate the manuscript or scientific article in question. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant professional or academic field. They may be recommended by the Editorial Committee, specialists, or other evaluators.

These reviewers form part of the Arbitration Committee, composed of academics and researchers from Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as other regions of the world. They are external to both the Publishing Institution and the General Editorial Board. The reports issued by the reviewers determine the feasibility of publication for each manuscript.

Articles previously deposited in preprint servers, due to the nature of their condition and exceptionally, will be reviewed by external peers under a single-blind or open peer-review model, as determined by agreement between the author and the Editorial Committee.

The positive evaluation of each manuscript depends on its alignment with the journal’s thematic scope, the relevance of the topic, its contribution to knowledge in the field, the originality of its findings, the soundness of its arguments, the critical analysis developed, the adequacy of the bibliographic references used, and the clarity of the discussion and recommendations, if applicable.

In cases of discrepancy between reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief may request evaluation by a third reviewer.

2.2.   Evaluation Outcomes

Once the external peer-review process has been completed, the Editorial Board will inform the authors of the evaluation result through the official Evaluation Report Form. This document will include the reviewers’ observations and comments and will be sent to the email address used for the manuscript submission.

Depending on the case, reviewers may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Publishable: The manuscript is accepted as submitted or with minor modifications, without the need for further review.
  • Publishable with Modifications: Publication is conditional upon the author completing all required revisions. Authors will have seven (7) business days to submit the revised version. Failure to meet this deadline will result in the manuscript being archived as “Not Publishable.”
  • Re-evaluable: At the time of review, the manuscript is not suitable for publication; however, the authors may substantially revise and resubmit the work. Resubmission does not guarantee publication, and the evaluation process will begin again from the initial stage. Authors will have ninety (90) business days to submit the new version. If this deadline is exceeded, the manuscript will be archived as “Not Publishable.”
  • Not Publishable: The manuscript is rejected. The identified deficiencies, justified through qualitative and quantitative evaluation, indicate that the manuscript does not meet the standards required for publication.

Each reviewer’s report will be discussed in a meeting of the Editorial Board, which will issue the final decision. All final decisions regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript will be communicated to the authors exclusively in writing via email.

2.4. Verification and Publication

If the manuscript is accepted with modifications, the authors must submit a revised version addressing the requests and suggestions of the external reviewers within seven (7) business days, as applicable. All modifications must be indicated using the “Track Changes” function in Microsoft Word. The revised manuscript will be forwarded to the Editorial Team to verify the adequacy and completeness of the requested modifications.

Based on the degree of compliance with the reviewers’ recommendations, the Editorial Team will determine whether publication of the article proceeds. This decision will be communicated to the author by the journal editors within a maximum of seven (7) business days.