Preliminary evaluation

1.- Once the manuscript has been received, along with the other precautions, the Editor-in-Chief will be in charge of seeing if the work corresponds to the publication areas of the journal.

2.- If it corresponds to any area, the work is subjected to superficial evaluation, by the Editor-in-Chief and the editor associated with the respective area, to verify that the work complies with the journal's standards, that is,

• The manuscript is inserted in the areas and / or branches of interest of publication of the journal.

• The manuscript is written in LaxTex language, preferably using the journal template.

• Authors meet the requirements set forth in the Publication Standards, including; Declaration of Originality (they state that their manuscript is original and unpublished, it is not being simultaneously postulated and that whoever presents it owns the copyright of it). Letter of Nomination and List of possible arbitrators in the subject area.

• The work is original and unpublished. DIVMAT-LUZ adheres to the criteria and guidelines of COPE to solve any ethical problem of redundancy, duplication and presumption of plagiarism. Here the editorial body verifies that the work is not plagiarism using free programs such as: DupliCheker (https://www.duplichecker.com/es); SmallSEOTools (https://smallseotools.com/es/plagiarism-checker/); Plagiarims detector (https://plagiarismdetector.net/es); and Search Engine Reports (https://searchenginereports.net/es/detector-de-plagio).
  

• Once the superficial evaluation has been approved, the journal proceeds to issue an acknowledgment of receipt where the author is informed of the registration code of his manuscript, with which he can make future consultations on the evolution of the evaluation process of his job.

3.- Once the acknowledgment of receipt has been issued, the panel of referees is assigned by the Chief Editor or Associate Editor of the respective area.

 

Assignment of arbitrators

1.- Upon having the list of possible referees, we proceed to select, among those proposed and those existing in the body of referees of the journal, the evaluators of the respective manuscript, at least two external to the journal and of affiliation other than that of the authors, and any third party within the area of the topic presented.

• The digital file of the manuscript is sent to the referee (without the data of the authors) together with a formal request for arbitration, and the journal evaluation template is included.

• The referee is given a period of five (5) days to accept or decline the evaluation of the manuscript.

• If there is any decline, by a preselected referee, another referee is selected.

 

Arbitration

Manuscript reviews are carried out through the Associate Editors and the Editor-in-Chief who assign the panel of referees / evaluators, from a portfolio that is fed back every day. The arbitrations are carried out ad-honorem by renowned external peers. The reviewers receive a message of thanks and proof for the arbitration carried out. 3 arbitrators are assigned, at least 2 external per job, to obtain at least two corresponding evaluations for a final verdict.

Evaluation criteria for referees

1.- Manuscripts will be refereed by at least 2 reviewers external to the journal, experts in the area and lines of work of interest, researchers and academics of recognized prestige, who will determine if the material meets the quality and relevance.

2.- Manuscripts are subjected to a double-blind evaluation process, in which both the authors and the evaluators are unknown. The result of the academic opinion process is final.

3.- The revision of a manuscript comprises three sections:

3.1.- The evaluation of form and substance, through academic and scientific quality criteria such as:

• Importance of the subject studied. It is determined how important is the contribution presented by the work.

• Originality of the discussion. Here the referees determine if the contribution of the manuscript is unpublished and guarantee that it is original and not a plagiarism of some other research, by using some (or all) of the following free programs: DupliCheker (https://www.duplichecker.com/es); Plagscan (https://www.plagscan.com/es/); SmallSEOTools (https://smallseotools.com/es/plagiarism-checker/); Plagiarims detector (https://plagiarismdetector.net/es); and Rearch Engine Reports (https://searchenginereports.net/es/detector-de-plagio).

• Relevance of the discussion. The impact that the contribution of the manuscript would generate in the study area is determined.

• Suitability of the summary. It is determined whether the abstract concisely presents the main idea of the manuscript and its content.

• Internal organization of work. It is checked that there is a logical and harmonious structure in the presentation of the content of the article.

• Writing and style. It is verified that the writing of the equations is clear and understandable, that they respect the margins as well as the illustrations, tables and tables. The spelling of the manuscript is checked. Clear presentation of statements and ideas is evaluated.

All quantitatively weighted by the reviewer, with specific comments for justification.

3.2.- The observations, in this section the arbitrators specify:

• The changes that the manuscript must undergo and can include simple questions that the author or authors must answer, if it is publishable with minor or major changes.

• The reasons why the publication of the manuscript is rejected, if its publication is denied.

3.3.- The arbitrators must determine, according to their judgment, the section where the article should be included, which may be:

• Investigation article.

• Expository and historical article.

• Mathematical teaching article.

 

Decision or Opinion

The final opinion will be made known to the authors through an “Evaluation or Decision Letter” and it is irrevocable. It could be one of the following:

• Publishable without modifications: This case occurs when two of the three arbitrators issue the decision “publishable without modifications” and the Chief Editor gives his approval, after reviewing it at his discretion, taking into account the opinion of the arbitrators. Here, text automatically goes to the editing stage.

• Publishable with slight modifications: This case occurs when two of the three arbitrators approve the publication, and at least one considers that slight modifications should be made. Manuscripts that are conditioned to make slight minor changes should meet the reviewers' recommendations before being considered for publication. In this case, the author will be informed that the work needs modifications, indicating exactly the same, and it will be up to the author if he incorporates them or not. The author will have a period of 7 continuous days, counted from the return date, to present the corrected version of his text along with a reply where he responds to each comment of the reviewer. Once these are done changes, the text will be reviewed again by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor and will proceed to be published.

• Publishable with substantial modifications: In this case, the author will be indicated the substantial modifications to be made to the work. The author will have a period of 15 days to present the corrected version of his text, which will be reviewed again by the same referees and by the Chief Editor or Associate Editor of the area, this to verify that the requested changes have been made satisfactorily and check in what action the reviewers' recommendations were followed. This new version must also be sent together with a reply letter, in which the authors compulsorily reply to the reviewers for the changes made regarding their review. Once the reviewers evaluate it again and make the decision to be publishable, although with some more changes, or reject it, the Editor-in-Chief in conjunction with the Associate Editor of the area are the ones who make the final decision regarding the decision of the reviewers and their own criteria, in this case go to the point of publishable with modifications, accept or reject it.

• Not publishable: This decision is irrevocable when the three referees deny publication of the manuscript. If at least one issues the decision to publish, either with slight or substantial modifications, the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor has the power to submit the manuscript for evaluation by two more referees if said decision is considered pertinent.