Proceso de revisión de pares

Revista Técnica Tributaria employs an external expert evaluation system, using the "double-blind" peer review method for works intended to be published as "Studies."

Upon receiving the original manuscripts, acknowledgment of receipt will be sent to the authors, without implying acceptance of the manuscripts. The editorial team, within 10 days, will assess the suitability for publication and the appropriateness of initiating the peer review process. If any formatting defects are observed in the submitted manuscript, the editorial team may suggest resubmission in accordance with the required specifications (length, format, etc.) before being sent to reviewers. The editor may make formal changes to the document without affecting the content of the article. 

The editorial team may reject the publication of a received original, in this first phase and without the need to initiate the peer review process, if it considers that the manuscript does not meet the required standards.

The received work will be anonymously sent to two anonymous reviewers within 7 days of receipt. The reviewers will have 2 days to accept or decline the review.

Upon acceptance, the external reviewers will evaluate the work and must submit the evaluation results within the 15-day period specified by the editorial team. The article will be assessed based on pre-established criteria, and the evaluation results must be reflected in the standardized "evaluation sheet," which will be sent to the editorial team. The evaluation criteria include:

1.- Originality and interest

2.- Document structure, approach, and grammatical rigor

3.- Bibliography used/appropriateness of citations (currency and relevance of sources consulted)

4.- Scientific contribution

5.- Potential impact

The evaluation sheet where reviewers must reflect the evaluation results can be viewed at the following link:

See evaluation sheet

The acceptance or rejection of the originals for publication corresponds to the Editorial Team, who will base their decision on the reports received from the external reviewers.

Upon receiving the evaluations, the editorial team will issue a reasoned report considering them, which will be communicated to the author within 7 days, along with the anonymized evaluation sheets sent by the reviewers. The outcome of this report may be: 1. Accepted / 2. Accepted with suggestions / 3. To be revised / 4. Rejected.

See report template

If applicable, the author will be informed of the suggestions/recommendations for changes to the original before proceeding with publication, along with the document "author's observations in the review process," in which the author must detail the suggestions/recommendations addressed and not addressed in the revised document, duly justified. The author must send the revised original within a maximum of 7 days. At the author's request, the editorial team may consider granting an extended deadline.

In case of disagreement or differing criteria between the two reviewers, the final decision on the evaluation will be made by the journal's editor along with a member of the Editorial Board.

The period for communicating to the author the decision on acceptance or rejection should not be longer than three months, although in certain exceptional cases a longer period may be required.

See author's observations document

The journal has an internal database that manages and records the transfer of articles, as well as information about the reviewers. At the end of each year, a list of participating reviewers is published. Additionally, all reviewers receive an annual certificate accrediting their participation in the review process, regardless of the number of articles they have reviewed during the year.

Throughout the review process, the editorial team will maintain the anonymity of both the authors and the reviewers.