Review process
Peer review
The Editorial Committee of HN JOURNAL will study each article according to the criteria of relevance, coherence, contributions to knowledge and will decide on the convenience of its publication.
The Editor will pay special attention to the following aspects:
- The article must be unpublished, i.e. it must not have been previously published - totally or partially - in another journal - physical or electronic - . At the time of submission, a declaration is requested from the authors guaranteeing that the manuscript is not in the process of evaluation by another academic journal and will not be submitted until the final decision of the Editorial Committee of HN JOURNAL is obtained, and the journal verifies this condition during various parts of the process, even after acceptance for publication, but before publication.
- Originality / innovation of the article.
- Clarity of the text.
- Usefulness / interest for the readers.
- Scientific rigor.
- Well-founded conclusions.
- Potential impact factor of the article, especially for research articles.
Stages of the opinion
The manuscript will be reviewed in the first instance by the associate editors to ensure that it meets the requirements established in the Guidelines for Authors; if it does not meet these standards, it will be returned to the author(s), within a period not exceeding 10 days, so that it can be adjusted. Likewise, the text will be tested in the Turnitin tool to control the referencing and prevent cases of plagiarism and/or self-plagiarism.
The adjusted articles will be submitted to an internal evaluation by the Editorial Committee, which will decide which articles will be sent for evaluation by two academic peers external to the publishing institution, experts in the areas related to the Journal. The process will be double-blind, which means that the author does not know who is evaluating the article, and the referee does not know who is being evaluated, and will be supported by the article evaluation guide format used by HN JOURNAL, which will be downloaded by the peers once they have accepted the evaluation of the article with the code assigned when registering as referees. The evaluation guide document must include the peer reviewer's justified recommendation on the publication of the article. Peers will have 15 calendar days to issue an opinion on the article assigned to them.
In the event that an article presents a favorable and an unfavorable concept, it will be sent to a third evaluator whose opinion will be final, being the Editorial Committee in charge of settling any controversy that may arise with respect to the evaluations, and it is the body that decides which articles will be published. The decisions of the Editorial Committee are final. The author agrees to make any formal adjustments suggested by the evaluators or the journal's editorial team. Authors will have 15 calendar days to make the adjustments.
Once the articles have been accepted and the authors have made the necessary adjustments and clarifications, they will be submitted to spell-checking, in which process the style of each author will be respected. The time allotted for layout is 5 calendar days.
Review process time
The time to obtain a response depends on the availability of peers to evaluate them and the promptness with which the recommendations made to the authors are made (this occurs in an average period of 90 days). During this time, authors are asked to refrain from submitting their paper in other ST+I journals. In the event that an article is objected to or rejected by its peers, the journal will inform its author of the results of the evaluation.
