Editorial process and peer review

Investigación e Innovación Clínica y Quirúrgica Pediátrica uses a rigorous peer-review process to assess the quality, validity, originality, and scientific relevance of submitted manuscripts. The journal applies a double-blind review model; that is, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

All manuscripts are subject to peer review. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers. Letters to the editor are assessed by the responsible scientific editors and, if deemed necessary, may be sent for external peer review. The entire review process, including the submission of comments, observations, and suggestions, is conducted through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

The peer-review process described below was developed with reference to recommendations from The Royal Society’s editorial and publishing team. This process may be adapted depending on the availability of scientific editors and associate editors, allowing scientific editors to assume, when necessary, responsibilities usually assigned to associate editors.

1. Initial screening

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial screening by the journal’s scientific editors. At this stage, the journal verifies the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, its relevance, and compliance with the standards required to enter the peer-review process. In addition, a similarity check is performed using specialized software (Turnitin).

2. Peer review

If the manuscript passes this stage, the scientific editor assigned to the manuscript appoints an associate editor to continue the editorial handling process. The associate editor performs a second assessment of the manuscript and identifies appropriate peer reviewers to initiate the peer-review process.

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on an internal guideline developed for this purpose and provide comments and suggestions aimed at improving the manuscript. Authors should address these comments as promptly as possible in order to facilitate timely publication.

Once authors have addressed the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, reviewers evaluate each response individually and indicate whether the comment has been resolved (resolved) or not (unresolved). Reviewers also provide a final recommendation to the associate editor and scientific editor by selecting one of the following options:

• Rejection: If the manuscript does not meet the minimum standards of scientific, ethical, or technical quality.
• Major revision: If the manuscript has merit but requires substantial changes to its design, methodology, analysis, or presentation.
• Minor revision: If the manuscript is close to being acceptable for publication but requires minor adjustments (e.g., wording, citations, or presentation).
• Acceptance without changes: If the manuscript is ready for publication as submitted..

The peer-review process will include a maximum of two (02) rounds of review, after which reviewers must provide a final recommendation.

3. Final decision

The associate editor provides a final recommendation to the scientific editor regarding acceptance or rejection, based on the reviewers’ comments, the associate editor’s critical assessment, and the results of a new similarity check applied to the final version of the manuscript.

The final decision is made by the assigned scientific editor. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, it undergoes copyediting and, when applicable, translation from Spanish into English.

Before the generation of the page proofs, the manuscript is subjected to a second similarity check using Turnitin in order to verify the originality of the final version and ensure that no inappropriate textual overlap has been introduced during the revision process.

Subsequently, the page proofs are prepared and sent to the corresponding author for review and approval within a maximum period of 48 hours. Once the author’s approval is received, the article is published in the corresponding issue, subject to the journal’s editorial schedule.