Before you begin

Before you accept or reject our invitation to evaluate an article, please consider the next questions:

• Does the article falls within your area of expertise? Accept our invitation only if you think that you can provide a high-quality review.
• Do you think that there could be a potencial conflict of interest? If so, you should report this to the editor.
• Do you have the required time to do the evaluation? Reviewing papers takes some time, so please make sure that you can meet our deadline.

Respond to our invitation as soon as you can (even if you're intention is to reject our proposition). A delay in your response makes the overall review process slower and means that authors will need to wait more time to learn about the journal's decision. If you decide to reject our invitation, please help us offering alternative reviewers for the paper.

Information handling

If you accept, you must treat the manuscript confidentially. This means that you cannot share the paper with anybody without prior authorization of the editor. Given that peer-review processes are confidential, you must not share the information included in the article, except that prior premission is offered by the editor and the author.

We expect that you use the online platform that our journal offers to handle everything related with the review. You must enter this page: https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/ciep/user/register, using your user and password to access the article that you mean to evaluate and/or communicate with our team. 

Academic evaluation

When evaluating the article:

• Evaluate the methodological section and assess if it is credible, if the methods used have not been discredited, if there are missing processes for data collection, processing and analysis and if the conclusion that have been reached match with the quantitative or qualitative evidence reported. 
• If you are satisfied with the methodology, examine the data, especially the way in which it is presented in the form of tables, graphs, images, figures, etc. Authors usually attach their research data, including visualizations in order to allow readers to engage more effectively with their research. 
• Consider your personal perspective, the overall argument, methods, evidence and general contribution to the wider academic debate of the piece

Your evaluation will help us decide whether to publish the article or not. It will also be helpful for the author, allowing him or her to improve the manuscript. Your opinion and general observations are absolutely essential to the process. Your comments must be offered politely and constructively and must not include ad hominen remarks, nor personal details, especially you name. 

Offering your perspective on the weaknesses of the paper is very important. You must explain and offer good support to your review in a way that editors and authors may comprehend the reasoning behind your comments. You must indicate whether your comments are your own opinions or are based on data and evidence.

Anuario CIEP uses a form for peer reviewers with more precise instructions on how to structure your feedback to the author: 

Peer-Review Form

Your recommendation

When you offer your recommendation, we consider indispensible that you make use of the categories that the editor will offer you to classify the article: 

• Reject (explain your reasoning in the Evaluation Form)
• Accept, without revisions
• Accept with revisions - whether these may be minor or major revisions (explain if the review is required). If you recommended a review, you must offer the author a clear and sound explanation of why changes are required.

Once you're ready to send the report, please follow the instructions in our webpage or contact us if you require assistance.

The Editorial Committtee will decide whether to accept or reject the paper. The editor will take all points of view into consideration and may ask for additional opinions or ask the author to offer a revised paper before making his final decision. 

Finally, on behalf of Anuario CIEP and our team, we thank you for the time and inputs offered in your peer reviews.