Double-Blind Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal Tempus Psicológico undergo a rigorous editorial evaluation that determines their originality, thematic relevance, and strict adherence to the quality standards established by the journal.

Phases of the Evaluation Process

1. Initial Screening and Desk Review

Upon receipt, manuscripts are evaluated by the Editorial Board based on an initial assessment report from the Editorial Coordinator. This preliminary screening includes:

• Plagiarism Prevention: Verification using specialized anti-plagiarism software provided by the Universidad de Manizales.
• Structural Verification: Compliance with the minimum formal requirements regarding manuscript structure, applicable to both original research articles and review articles.
• Linguistic Assessment: An initial reading of the text to ensure adherence to minimum standards of grammar and syntax requisite for an adequate peer-review process.

Based on the Editorial Coordinator's report and any necessary complementary screening, the Editorial Board shall determine whether the manuscript meets the criteria to proceed to formal peer review. This decision will be promptly communicated to the authors, who will then be requested to submit signed Conflict of Interest forms, verified ORCID profiles, a formal commitment to originality, and an explicit waiver confirming the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere during the evaluation and publication workflow.

2. External Peer Review

Once the fully completed forms are received from the authors, the manuscript is forwarded to external peer reviewers. Reviewers conduct a double-blind evaluation utilizing the standardized evaluation rubrics established by Tempus Psicológico.

3. Conflict Resolution and Discrepancies

In the event of conflicting evaluation outcomes between the two initial reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief shall review the case and make a final determination. In these instances, the editorial decision regarding manuscript publication remains the exclusive and binding authority of the Editor-in-Chief.

To support this decision-making process, the Editor-in-Chief may assign the manuscript to a third referee, whose evaluation will serve as an independent criterion for final adjudication. While an unfavorable report from this third referee may result in the definitive rejection of the manuscript, a favorable opinion will be factored into the final publication assessment, which ultimately remains at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

4. Evaluation Criteria

The explicit scientific and technical criteria established by the journal for manuscript evaluation are detailed within the formal rubrics attached at the end of this document.