Guidelines for External Reviewers

Peer Review Guidelines (Guide for External Reviewers)

The journal Tempus Psicológico, as a peer-reviewed scientific publication, submits all submitted manuscripts to an external review process to guarantee originality, writing quality, and academic rigor prior to publication. The journal strictly applies a double-blind peer-review methodology to ensure transparency, objectivity, and integrity throughout the evaluation process.

The Editorial Board shall reject manuscripts that fail to comply with the journal's editorial policies or formal publication regulations; in such cases, authors will be promptly notified, allowing them to submit their work elsewhere. In coordination with the Editorial Board, the Journal Editor selects and classifies manuscripts that meet the core quality criteria. External reviewers are formally assigned according to their specific area of expertise and research topics. Under the double-blind model, both reviewer and author identities remain strictly anonymous.

1. Peer Reviewer Criteria

External reviewers must be academic experts in the manuscript's subject area and have a proven record of scientific publications within that relevant discipline over the last three (3) years. Reviewers are responsible for evaluating the originality, quality, scientific rigor, and relevance of the data associated with the research, providing the fundamental criteria for the acceptance or rejection of submissions.

2. Editorial and Evaluation Process

• Preliminary Desk Review: Upon receipt, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editors within five (5) business days to verify compliance with formatting guidelines and to assess originality using specialized plagiarism detection tools at the Universidad de Manizales. This phase may result in desk rejection, initial approval, or requests for technical corrections before proceeding to formal peer review.
• Peer Arbitrage: Manuscripts passing the initial screen are assigned to two external reviewers. Reviewers have fifteen (15) business days to submit their formal evaluation based on the standardized rubrics provided by the journal.

3. Referee Recommendations

Reviewer recommendations submitted to the journal shall be categorized as follows:

• Approve the manuscript without modifications.
• Approve the manuscript with minor revisions.
• Condition approval upon major revisions (subject to a second round of evaluation by the original reviewers).
• Reject the manuscript.

Authors will receive formal notification of the editorial decision. Acceptance is contingent upon the satisfactory completion of the requested adjustments within fifteen (15) days post-notification. The Editorial Board reserves the right to introduce minor stylistic corrections to align the text with publication standards without altering the core scientific content. The Editorial Board remains the final governing authority regarding the acceptance and subsequent publication of all submissions. Once style corrections are implemented, the final galley proofs are sent to the authors for final approval prior to publication.

4. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

The Editorial Board encourages reviewers to strictly adhere to the following ethical principles:

• Conduct objective, comprehensive evaluations regarding the study’s objectives, methodology, data analysis, interpretations, conclusions, and bibliographic section.
• Maintain absolute neutrality, impartiality, and respect within all comments, providing constructive evidence to support evaluation statements.
• Notify the editors immediately if plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or redundant text recycling is identified, or if the reviewer becomes aware of a substantially similar work currently under evaluation or publication elsewhere.
• Submit the evaluation report on time or communicate promptly with the editor if an extension is required due to unexpected delays.
• Verify that all cited data sources, references, and citations within the manuscript correspond accurately to the reference list.

Note: Upon successful completion of the review process, the journal will issue a formal arbitration certificate in gratitude for the reviewer's professional contribution. To facilitate this, reviewers must be registered on the journal's OJS platform.

Evaluation Formats and Rubrics

Reviewers may access the official evaluation formats via the following institutional repository:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SjlWkVyBvrORpUUbaVWqAkJCthzzjURs?usp=drive_link