Peer Review Process

HolCien follows the double-blind peer review policy, a process in which neither the reviewer nor the author have any data that allows them to identify each other; special care is maintained with the established ethical standards to avoid conflicts of interest. The journal counts on the collaboration of external evaluators outside the publishing institution.
The article evaluation process is fully automated, and the author can receive and exchange with the editorial committee, as well as track the progress of the process, strictly through the electronic platform (Open Journal System).
Each work is submitted to the consideration of two or more arbiters who issue the verdict on the scientific articles sent by the authors that comply with the publication standards. The corresponding author will receive the manuscript reception notification, with its identification number, which must be used from that moment onward.
Articles are received by the director and/or executive editor, who performs the first reading and determines if the manuscript meets the general requirements in accordance with the journal’s publication standards, and submits it to evaluation through a specialized plagiarism detector; it is then directed to section editors, and these to each pair of arbiters or trios, if a third evaluation is necessary.
If these requirements are not met, if methodological deficiencies are present, or if the general requirements of content, form, and structure are not fulfilled according to the journal’s publication standards, the director or executive editor determines whether to continue the editorial process or reject it. In this case, it will be returned to the author for correction before starting the evaluation process.
The maximum time agreed by the journal is 30 business days. The article reception date will not start counting until its correct receipt. The corresponding author is notified to correct these initial remarks. Peer review will only begin for manuscripts that meet the required standards.
The director or executive editor and/or section editor maintain contact with the reviewers; the section editor selects the pairs of evaluators and controls the timelines and evaluation cycle. First, they are asked about their availability for review, and once accepted, they are given a 30-business-day deadline, extendable only upon explicit request. If necessary, a third evaluator will be requested. The executive editor receives feedback by systematically and externally contacting them through user criteria.
Compliance with methodological requirements for different article types:
 Originality, novelty, and timeliness of the proposed study.
 Methodological and content quality of the work.
 Compliance with ethical and anti-plagiarism standards.
 70% of updated bibliographic references.
 Importance for research or practice in the field addressed.
Each arbiter is sent a guide to facilitate the review, where they must define one of the following categories: accept this submission, publishable with modifications, reevaluable, or not publishable.
The observations and suggestions from the Editorial Board and reviewers will be sent to the corresponding author, who must respond as soon as possible (maximum 30 days).
The Editorial Committee will determine the final decision on the manuscript’s publication, taking into consideration the arbiters’ decision.
Once the manuscript is accepted, it is sent for editing and style correction, then moves to production to prepare the proofs. Once the author approves uploading the galley proof, it will not be removed from the platform.
About the evaluation process
Manuscripts accepted after the first evaluation will undergo peer review. If the document is accepted with modifications, authors will have up to 30 calendar days to return it with corrections; otherwise, a new submission must be made, and the process will restart. The Editorial Team commits to providing a verdict on the evaluation process within no more than 120 days.
Article evaluation cycle and participants
Arbiters and editors participate in the evaluation process. The evaluation period must not exceed 120 days; within this period, authors will be informed about the conclusion of the article evaluation. They have 30 business days to implement corrections suggested by arbiters or editors; otherwise, the editorial committee has the authority to withdraw the article from the journal due to non-compliance with established guidelines.
The decision of acceptance, acceptance with modifications, or rejection is communicated by the editor to the author. If rejected, the editor sends the contact author the evaluation results with the reviewers’ suggestions for potential improvements to the article. If accepted, the article moves to the editorial processing stage.
The maximum time for publishing an article from its submission, if accepted, is one year.