Review process
Review Process
Peer Review
The Editorial Committee of HN JOURNAL will review each article based on criteria regarding relevance, coherence, and contribution to knowledge, and will decide on the advisability of its publication.
The Editor pays particular attention to the following aspects:
- That the article is unpublished—that is, that it has not been previously published (in whole or in part) in another journal, whether in print or electronic format. At the time of submission, authors are required to provide a declaration guaranteeing that the manuscript is not currently under review by another academic journal, nor will it be submitted elsewhere until a final decision is received from the HN JOURNAL Editorial Committee. Furthermore, the journal verifies this condition at various stages of the process—including after acceptance for publication, but prior to actual publication.
- Originality / innovation of the article.
- Clarity of the text.
- Utility / interest for readers.
- Scientific rigor.
- Well-founded conclusions.
- Potential impact factor of the article, particularly for research papers.
Review Stages
The manuscript will first be reviewed by the Associate Editors to ensure compliance with the requirements set forth in the Guidelines for Authors. Should the manuscript fail to adhere to these guidelines, it will be returned to the author(s)—within a period of no more than 10 days—for revision. Additionally, the text undergoes a check using the Turnitin tool to verify proper referencing and to detect instances of plagiarism and/or self-plagiarism.
Once revised, the articles will undergo an internal evaluation by the Editorial Committee, which will determine which articles are to be sent for peer review by two external academic experts—independent of the publishing institution—who specialize in fields relevant to the Journal. These reviewers are required to utilize the official HN JOURNAL evaluation form. The process will be double-blind, meaning that the author does not know who is evaluating their work, and the reviewer does not know whose work they are evaluating. This process will be guided by the article evaluation rubric utilized by HN JOURNAL, which reviewers may download—using the access key assigned to them during their registration as reviewers—once they have accepted the assignment to evaluate an article. The evaluation rubric document must include the reviewer's reasoned recommendation regarding the publication of the article. Reviewers will have a period of 15 calendar days to submit their assessment of the assigned article.
Should an article receive one favorable and one unfavorable assessment, it will be sent to a third reviewer whose opinion shall be final. The Editorial Committee is responsible for resolving any disputes arising from the evaluations and serves as the final authority regarding which articles are selected for publication. The decisions of the Editorial Committee are final and not subject to appeal. The author agrees to implement any formal revisions suggested by the reviewers or the journal's editorial team. Authors will have a period of 15 calendar days to complete these revisions.
Once articles have been accepted—and the authors have completed any necessary revisions or clarifications—they proceed to the copyediting and proofreading stage, during which the individual writing style of each author is preserved. The time allotted for layout and typesetting is 5 calendar days.
Review Process Timeline
The time required to receive a decision depends on the availability of reviewers to conduct evaluations and the promptness with which authors address any recommendations made to them (this process typically takes an average of 90 days). During this period, authors are requested to refrain from submitting their article to other Science, Technology, and Innovation (ST&I) journals. Should an article be challenged or rejected by the reviewers, the journal will notify the author of the evaluation results.
