Peer review process

Peer Review Policy

Peer review is a fundamental mechanism to ensure the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and academic rigor of manuscripts published in CognitivaTech: Intelligent Software Engineering and Adaptive Systems. This process ensures that all accepted contributions represent a significant advancement in software engineering, artificial intelligence, computing, and related disciplines.

1. Peer Review Model

The journal applies a Double-Blind Peer Review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the editorial process.

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with recognized expertise in the subject area.

2. Initial Editorial Evaluation

Upon submission, the Editorial Committee conducts a preliminary evaluation to verify:

  • Compliance with the journal's aims and scope.

  • Originality, scientific quality, and relevance.

  • Compliance with the Instructions for Authors.

  • Methodological quality and scientific writing.

  • Compliance with editorial and ethical policies.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected before external peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their academic expertise, scientific publications, and experience in the manuscript's subject area.

Whenever possible, reviewers are selected from institutions different from those of the authors to ensure independence, objectivity, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

4. Review Process

The peer review process includes the following stages:

  • Selection and invitation of expert reviewers.

  • Acceptance of the review invitation.

  • Scientific evaluation of the manuscript.

  • Submission of review reports.

  • Editorial decision based on the reviewers' recommendations.

Reviewers have up to 7 days to accept or decline the invitation and, once accepted, approximately 4 weeks to complete the review.

Authors are normally notified of the initial editorial decision within 30 to 45 days after manuscript submission.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate, among other aspects:

  • Originality and scientific contribution.

  • Relevance and timeliness of the topic.

  • Methodological rigor.

  • Quality and interpretation of the results.

  • Consistency between objectives, methodology, and conclusions.

  • Relevance and currency of the references.

  • Compliance with research ethics.

6. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editorial Committee may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept.

  • Accept with minor revisions.

  • Major revisions required.

  • Reject.

The final decision rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief.

7. Revised Manuscripts

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a Response to Reviewers document.

If substantial revisions are required or reviewers' recommendations differ significantly, the manuscript may be submitted to a third reviewer.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and editorial documents are treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not disclose, share, or use any information contained in the manuscript without the journal's authorization.

All communication between authors, reviewers, and editors is conducted exclusively through the journal's editorial platform.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their evaluation. When such conflicts exist, they must decline the review.

10. Principles of Peer Review

Peer review is conducted under the principles of independence, objectivity, impartiality, confidentiality, respect, ethics, and scientific integrity.

11. Publication

Accepted manuscripts are normally published within 10 to 20 days after final acceptance, assigned a DOI, and progressively incorporated into the journal's indexing services and digital preservation systems.