Reviewers

MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION GUIDELINES FOR EXTERNAL REVIEWERS

Enfoque UTE’s Reviewers Board is a collegiate body conformed by national and foreign experts of great prestige in their areas, which guarantees the quality of publications in this scientific journal by evaluating articles under the double-blind scheme. This team is in charge of issuing its criteria on the novelty, rigor, relevance and impact of the articles that are submitted for evaluation.
Manuscript evaluation is carried out by a group of experts from the Council of International Reviewers, allowing the selection of the best articles to be published. On the other hand, the author obtains an objective report of its strengths and weaknesses.
The revision process is confidential, and all involved undertake to maintain it, as well as to demand it of those who, in one way or another, are consulted on any manuscript or topic. Reviewers will maintain objectivity and accuracy in their comments, which will respect elementary standards of courtesy among colleagues. The entire review process is done through the OJS 3 platform.
The International Reviewers Board is made up of academics independent from the Editorial Board, which allows them to evaluate the manuscripts with complete confidentiality, autonomy and independence. Last year’s Reviewers Board is public on our website https://ingenieria.ute.edu.ec/enfoqueute.

1. Acceptance / rejection criteria for manuscript evaluation
The Editors of Enfoque UTE request, through an invitation, the collaboration of the Reviewer that they believe is empowered to carry out the evaluation of the manuscript, given their knowledge and expertise in the subject, as well as their interests in the area of research. The participation of the Reviewers is essential in the process of sending reports to the authors regarding deadlines and publication processes. However, acceptance to evaluate a manuscript is related to:

1. Knowledge and experience in the subject of the article. The Reviewer must have the necessary competences to give his criteria regarding the content of the manuscript.
2. Availability of time. Reviewing and evaluating a manuscript takes hours of work and analysis.
3. Conflict of interest. If the Reviewer detects that there are conflicts of interest due to the suspicion of loss of anonymity of the authors, or that there may be closeness to the University or research group, as well as some personal or professional relationship, this incidence must be recorded as a justification to refuse to carry out the review.
4. Confidentiality commitment. The reception of a manuscript in the process of revision implies a commitment to its confidentiality, so that the Reviewer is not able to share it with third parties. Any doubt that exists regarding an additional opinion from another person should be consulted beforehand with the Editor.

If for any reason mentioned above, the Reviewer cannot carry out the manuscript evaluation process, they must notify the Editor through the platform, indicating the reasons for rejecting the invitation.

2. Reviewing
The task of the external reviewer, as a blind peer, is to objectively and constructively analyze the content of the manuscript to collaborate with the editors in decision-making: if the work under review contains parameters of high scientific quality and meets all the parameters to be accepted and subsequently published.
The reviewers will provide a technical report of the manuscript to the Associate Editors. This report contains the criteria of quality, originality, clarity and relevance of the article.

3. General criteria for manuscript evaluation
The general criteria that the Reviewer must evaluate in the manuscript are centered on four axes:

1. Originality of the manuscript. Since technology is constantly advancing, our magazine seeks originality and novelty in each of the manuscripts received. The Reviewer can make use of tools such as Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, among other scientific sources, to see the importance and relevance of the research topic. The central theme of the manuscript must be novel and relevant, so that it is attractive to the scientific community; This must be specific and covered in detail throughout the article. The summary is a very important element of the document, it should describe in a few words the work carried out, highlight the most relevant points of the work and include a brief synthesis of the main conclusions reached, without covering them all. The introduction should contain the current state of the problem (related works or state of the art), including the most relevant similar studies and highlighting their approaches, pros and cons. In addition, this correctly indicates what the research consists of, the proposed objectives, background and hypotheses.
2. Rigor of the manuscript. The methodology must be accurately described with the procedure carried out during the design, experimentation and testing of the hypothesis. Timely introduce the resources, materials and methods used in each part of the process. The results must clearly explain the product of the work, where measurement or quantification data can be presented. The discussion interprets the results according to similar studies, that is, it must correlate the results of the study with others carried out and state advantages and contributions, avoiding adjectives that praise the results. As for the revision of the references, it must be done exhaustively, so that relevant works are not omitted from the document. These references must correspond to research within the subject and current events.
3. Clarity of the manuscript. Regarding the language, if the manuscript presents syntactic and / or semantic grammatical errors in Spanish or English, which make it difficult to read and understand it, the Reviewer should not proceed to revise. In this case, the Editor must be informed so that the article is returned to the author and, where appropriate, be forwarded in compliance with the parameters required by the regulations. Regarding the use of tables and figures, the reviewer will determine their relevance in order to clarify the text of the article (number and form).
4. Relevance of the manuscript. The conclusions must specify what results were obtained and whether they allowed the objectives to be met, raise study perspectives, the application of the results and future work. Finally, at this point, it will be assessed whether the research carried out makes a contribution to the state of the art in an appropriate way.

4. Ethical issues
The Reviewers undertake to confidentially notify the Editors of any suspicion of unethical conduct or fraud in the results of the manuscripts, such as the detection of total or partial plagiarism, citing the original work when possible.

5. Manuscript evaluation process in OJS 3
- Access the Enfoque UTE system, with your username and password, using the URL: https://ingenieria.ute.edu.ec/enfoqueute/index.php/revista/login

- Follow the instructions detailed in the URL:
https://docs.pkp.sfu.ca/learning-ojs/en/reviewing

6. Evaluation report
Enfoque UTE’s Reviewers, after thoroughly analyzing the manuscript, contrasting the information provided in it and reviewing the scientific literature that supports the document, will inform the Editors about the relevance of accepting or rejecting it.
The evaluation report will consist of completing the external peer review protocol, which quantitatively evaluates four dimensions, according to Table 1.

Table 1. Weights of the evaluated parameters

Evaluated parameter	Weight
Originality of the manuscript	20 points
Manuscript rigor	40 points
Clarity of the Manuscript	20 points
Relevance of the mauscript	20 points

In each of these dimensions, the Reviewer will quantitatively assess the parameters to be evaluated. After assigning a rating, it will issue its observations, suggestions and comments that justify the assessment made. In addition, for specific comments, the Reviewer will fill in a comments section for the author, which will include suggestions that have not been considered in the previous points.
Finally, the Reviewer may suggest, based on the evaluation carried out, if the article submitted for evaluation falls into one of the categories that appear in Table 2.

Table 2. Manuscript decision

Reccomendation	Evaluation
Accept	91 – 100
Accept with minor changes	90 – 71
Required major modifications	70 – 51
Reject	0 – 50

The comments made must be clear, concise, objective and supported, so that the author and the editors can understand the suggestions made and the decision regarding the acceptance or not of the manuscript. Reviewers are encouraged to maintain formal and friendly language in their comments.

7.   Manuscript evaluation protocol for external reviewers
The manuscript evaluation protocol to be evaluated by external peer reviewers refers to the rubric detailed below.

MANUSCRIPT ORIGINALITY
Evaluated parameter	Evaluation	Comments and observations
The research is original, current and relevant.	/2
The title is novel and encompasses the research presented in the document.	/2
The summary highlights the most relevant points of the work, it includes a brief synthesis of the main conclusions reached, without covering them all.	/4
The manuscript presents the current state of the problem (Related works or State of the art), including those more relevant similar studies and highlighting their approaches, pros and cons.	/6
The manuscript correctly indicates what the research consists of, the proposed objectives, background and hypotheses.	/6
Total	/20

 

MANUSCRIPT RIGOR
Evaluated parameter	Evaluation	Comments and observations
The Methodology accurately describes the procedure carried out during the design, experimentation and testing of the hypothesis. Enter the resources, materials and methods used in each part of the process accurately and in a timely manner.	/10
The results obtained are conclusive and are in accordance with the objectives and hypotheses of the article.	/10
The Discussion interprets the results obtained, correlating them with other related works. It lists the advantages of the study and its contributions, as well as the difficulties they faced.	/10
The Bibliography is relevant, updated and sufficient.	/10
Total	/40

 

MANUSCRIPT CLARITY
Evaluated parameter	Evaluation	Comments and observations
The manuscript is clearly written so that it is easy to follow and understand.	/10
The figures and tables are of good quality and contribute to a better understanding of the subject. All figures and tables are correctly introduced and explained in the text.	/10
Total	/20

 

MANUSCRIPT RELEVANCE
Evaluated parameter	Evaluation	Comments and observations
The Conclusions and recommendations specify and point out the results obtained and whether they allowed the objectives to be met. They present study perspectives, and the applicability of the results.	/15
The manuscript contributes to the state of the art in an appropriate way	/5
Total	/20

 

General comments for the author (Any additional recommendation to improve the article; extension of the points reviewed; justification of the decisions taken ...)