Revisores
Regulations for External Reviewers
Scientific Journal of Architecture and Urbanism EIDOS
ISSN-E: 1390-5007 - ISSN-L: 1390-499X
The External Reviewers Board is a collegiate body responsible for ensuring the excellence of this scientific publication. "EIDOS" relies exclusively on the blind evaluation of the manuscript's content, carried out by internationally renowned experts in the field. This process guarantees the highest endorsement for the advancement of science and the preservation of original and valuable scientific production in this journal.
The evaluation of manuscripts by national and international experts is crucial for selecting articles with the greatest impact for the scientific community. This review also allows authors, once their manuscripts are selected for evaluation, to receive objective feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their work based on external criteria.
All reviews in "EIDOS" follow the internationally standardized system of double-blind peer review, ensuring the anonymity of the manuscripts. The review process is conducted within the Open Source OJS 3.0 platform, generating an average of three reports for each manuscript under evaluation, provided by both national and international reviewers.
The "EIDOS" Reviewers Board consists of a collective of national and international experts in various thematic areas, external to the editorial group's governing bodies. They may also be members of the Scientific Council, Editorial Board, or Technical Council, but their independence and anonymity in the evaluation process are guaranteed. Complete lists of Reviewers are published annually on the official website of the journal: https://revistas.ute.edu.ec/index.php/eidos.
1. Acceptance/Rejection Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation
The editors of "EIDOS" always invite reviewers who are considered the most qualified in the specific subject area of the manuscript. However, the journal expects maximum collaboration from reviewers to facilitate and expedite the review process and responses to the authors. In any case, acceptance as a reviewer should be linked to the following criteria:
a) Knowledge and academic expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. Acceptance requires possessing competence in the specific topic of the article.
b) Time availability. Reviewing an article requires time and thorough consideration of various aspects.
c) Conflict of interest. The scientific community is limited in size. Therefore, if the reviewer identifies the authorship of the manuscript, excessive academic or familial proximity to the authors, affiliation with the same university, department, research group, thematic network, research projects, joint publications with the authors, or any other form of professional connection or conflict/closeness should result in declining the editor's invitation for review. Conflicts of interest can arise from both proximity and animosity towards the authors, especially if they can be identified within the anonymity of the manuscript. However, authors can indicate through the platform which researchers may have conflicts with their work, and reviewers should also report any such issues.
d) Commitment to confidentiality. Reviewers must explicitly commit to maintaining confidentiality throughout the evaluation process when receiving a manuscript for review. They should not disclose it to any third party. If the reviewer wishes to seek colleagues' opinions on the article, they should consult with the Editor, who must explicitly approve such limited dissemination for evaluation purposes. While additional comments from colleagues are appreciated, it is essential to keep the entire review process confidential. The reviewer's assessment and recommendations will contribute to the editors' final decision.
If reviewers are unable to conduct the review due to any of these reasons or other justifiable grounds, they should notify the Editor through the OJS platform (using the same communication channel through which the invitation was received) and specify the reasons for rejection so that they can be taken into account.
2. Reviewer's Role
The role of the External Reviewer, as a peer evaluator, is to critically and constructively analyze the content of the manuscript to collaborate with the Associate and Thematic Editors in verifying/confirming if the presented work is of high scientific quality and meets all the demanding parameters of this publication for acceptance and subsequent editing.
The evaluation provided by the Reviewers is crucial for assessing the originality and excellence of the content presented in a substantial and precise manner.
Reviewers will provide an overall "impact priority" evaluation that reflects the likelihood of the article exerting a constant and powerful influence in the research areas of the Journal.
3. General Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
a) Topic
The central topic of the article must be valuable and relevant. It should be specific enough to allow for detailed treatment without becoming overly localized while being of deep interest to the international scientific community.
b) Writing
The critical evaluation of the manuscript by the Reviewers should be written in an objective tone, providing accurate citations or references of interest to support the argumentation and justify it.
c) Originality
The originality and suitability of the manuscript are essential selection criteria for our journal. The high number of received submissions requires Reviewers to be highly selective:
- Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to justify its publication?
- Does it contribute to the canon of knowledge?
- Is the research question relevant?
A quick literature search using tools such as Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar to see if the research has been previously covered can be useful. The references in those works are also of interest to the Editors.
d) Structure
Any manuscript must contain all the key elements: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
- The title, abstract, and keywords should precisely describe the content of the article. They are essential for search engines to help readers easily retrieve the article.
- The literature review should summarize the state of the art of relevant research that contextualizes the work in the international landscape and explain which conclusions of other authors, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should include a general explanation of the study, its central objective, and the followed methodological design.
- In the case of research studies, in the description and analysis of the method, the author should specify how the data is collected, the process, and the instruments used to answer the hypotheses—providing all the necessary information for replication if desired by other researchers.
- The results should clearly specify the findings, establishing them in a logical sequence. It is necessary to consider if the corresponding type of analysis, whether quantitative, qualitative, or mixed, presents any type of error.
- The discussion should include the interpretation of the obtained data in light of the literature review and data collection. The authors should indicate here whether their article supports or contradicts previous theories. The conclusions should explain the advances that the research proposes in the area of scientific knowledge.
- Language: If an article has significant grammatical errors or uses convoluted and confusing language that hinders readability and goes against the clarity, simplicity, precision, and transparency of scientific language, the Reviewer should not proceed with corrections, whether in Spanish or English. They should inform the Editors of these grammatical errors or complex language, and the Editors will return it to the authors so that, if necessary, they can submit a text that meets the required parameters according to the guidelines.
- The relevance of figures and tables, their contribution, the precise description of the data, as well as consistency in the graphics, should also be determined.
- Finally, a thorough review of the references is required in case any relevant work has been omitted. The references should be accurate, citing the logic of the subject under study, its main works, as well as the documents that most closely resemble the own work, as well as the latest research in the field.
4. Relevant Assessment Dimensions
The reviewers of "EIDOS" should deeply analyze the manuscript, contrasting the information provided, reviewing the scientific literature that justifies the document, and informing the editors quantitatively and qualitatively about the appropriateness of accepting the work.
The evaluative information should be reasoned and qualitative, accompanied by a numerical score that is consistent with the written observations and also serves as a criterion for prioritizing the presented works.
RESEARCH:
1. Title (clarity and structure): 0/10
2. Abstract and keywords: 0/10
3. Relevance of the topic; 4. Originality of the work; 5. Literature review: 0/10
6. Article structure and organization; 7. Argumentative capacity; 8. Writing: 0/10
9. Methodological rigor; 10. Research instruments: 0/10
11. Research results; 12. Advances; 13. Discussion; 14. Conclusions: 0/10
15. Citations (variety and richness); 16. References: 0/10
Maximum Total: 70
CRITIQUE:
1. Title (clarity and structure): 0/10
2. Abstract and keywords: 0/10
3. Relevance of the topic: 0/10
4. Literature review: 0/10
5. Article structure and organization; 6. Argumentative capacity and coherence; 7. Scientific writing: 0/10
8. Original contributions; 9. Conclusions: 0/10
10. Citations (variety and richness); 11. References: 0/10
Maximum Total: 70
5. Ethical Issues
a) Plagiarism: If there is suspicion that an article is a substantial copy of another work, the Reviewer must inform the Editors, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism detection systems (Urkund, Grammarly, Turnitin, etc.) prescribed by the publication are used by both Reviewers and Editors.
b) Fraud: If there is a real or remote suspicion that the results in an article are false or fraudulent, it is necessary to report them to the Editors.
6. Manuscript Evaluation Process in OJS
Once the expert becomes part of the Reviewer Council, they are registered in the OJS Platform, and from that moment on, they can receive requests for article evaluation. To do this, they will receive an email requesting article review in their personal inbox. This request must be accepted or rejected within a period of 10 days through the platform.
To notify their decision, the Reviewer must log in with their username and password, provided during registration (in case of loss, if the username is known, a new password can be automatically requested), and select the Reviewer role, gaining access to the screen with the list of "Active Submissions."
By clicking on the article to be reviewed, a page will appear with information about the submission: title, authors and abstract, review status (dates), steps to complete the review, and guidelines.
a) Select, according to the Reviewer's decision, whether to accept or reject the assignment.
b) If the decision is affirmative, the Reviewer must complete the report.
c) After sending the acceptance email, the Reviewer must download the article to be reviewed and save it on their PC.
d) After reviewing the downloaded article, the Evaluation Form should be filled out.
e) To upload the Evaluation Form, the Reviewer must click on the "Browse" button, which allows them to navigate through the files on their PC to find the corresponding file, and then click the "Upload" button.
Once the recommendation selection is made, the screen enabling the Reviewer to send an email to the Editor to inform them that the review is complete will be available. This requires clicking the "Send Review to Editor" button. This final action is essential for the Editor to know that the review process has been completed.
With the sending of this email, the article evaluation task is completed. The thematic and associate Editors will evaluate this review, taking into account the expert and editorial criteria, to make a decision. One possible decision is to initiate a new review round (second round), for which the collaboration of the same Reviewer could be requested again, and they would follow the described steps.
For further information, please visit: https://revistas.ute.edu.ec/index.php/eidos
7. Report to the Editors
The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points indicated in the previous section.
Reviewers' comments should be respectful and constructive and should not include personal comments or data. They should provide clear and strong information about any deficiencies. Reviewers should explain and support their evaluation so that Editors and Authors can understand the reasoning behind the comments. It should also be indicated whether the expressed comments are personal or based on authoritative criteria.
The reports can be sent to the Authors as they have been prepared by the Reviewer. Therefore, it is important to pay special attention to formal aspects (organization, clarity, writing, spelling, etc.). Keep in mind that reports often include evaluations and request modifications regarding the formal aspects of the articles, so it is essential to be careful in what is being evaluated.
Take care in formulating evaluations, avoiding, as much as possible, interpretations that may be offensive to the Authors. It is necessary to combine rigor and even severity in evaluations with an exquisite respect for the work of the authors. Never use expressions like "It is not serious that..." or "Only from a total lack of knowledge or ignorance of the studied problem can one affirm that..." or similar ones.
Partial evaluations regarding content and formal aspects will take into account the following evaluation criteria:
Content aspects:
- Degree of interest and relevance of the topic.
- Relevance and currency of the sources.
- Interest of the theoretical approach.
- Clarity in the exposition of the objectives of the work.
- Adequacy of the methodological design to the objectives of the work.
- Relevance and correctness of data analysis procedures (if applicable).
- Interest of the empirical data provided (if applicable).
- Relevance of the discussion, results, and conclusions.
- Importance for professional didactics (if applicable).
Formal aspects:
- Organization and structure.
- Balanced and appropriate section length according to the content.
- Writing and style.
- Presentation of tables and/or graphs.
- Bibliographic references (APA standards and correspondence of in-text citations with the final list).
Only the criteria for which the Reviewer deems it appropriate to make comments and suggestions will be considered.
The categories used by "EIDOS" to classify an evaluated manuscript are as follows:
a) Rejection due to detected deficiencies, justified and reasoned with qualitative and quantitative evaluation. The report should be more extensive if it scores less than 55 out of the possible 70 points.
b) Acceptance without revisions.
c) Conditional acceptance (with major or minor changes). In the latter case, it should be clearly identified what revisions are necessary, listing the comments and even specifying paragraphs and pages where modifications are suggested.
In our case, we use:
☐ Can be published without modifications
☐ Can be published with minor changes
☐ Can be published with major changes
☐ Rejected
8. Manuscript Evaluation Protocols for External Reviewers
External reviewers are required to have a thorough understanding of the publication guidelines: https://revistas.ute.edu.ec/index.php/eidos/about/submissions in order to assess whether the evaluated manuscripts adhere to them and to indicate any significant deviations.
Reviewers will follow the Manuscript Evaluation Protocol for Reviewers:
- Research: https://revistas.ute.edu.ec/index.php/eidos/libraryFiles/downloadPublic/6
- Critique: https://revistas.ute.edu.ec/index.php/eidos/libraryFiles/downloadPublic/7
They will examine each of the review criteria and evaluate the scientific and technical merit, assigning an independent score to each criterion. An article does not need to excel in all categories to determine its level of quality and scientific impact.
Normativa para revisores (PDF)
