Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

About the Journal

Apuntes del Cenes (ISSN 0120-3053 / E ISSN 2256-5779) is a biannual, double-blind peer-reviewed scientific journal in which articles on economic theory, economic policy, regional economics, finance, and other topics related to economics in the national and international context are published.

Aims and Scope

Apuntes del Cenes is a biannual, double-blind peer-reviewed scientific journal in which articles on economic theory, economic policy, regional economics, finance, and other topics related to economics in the national and international context are published.

Target Audience

Apuntes del Cenes is aimed at academic and research communities from public and private, national and international institutions and others interested in issues related to economic science.


Apuntes del Cenes journal's mission is to contribute to the discussion and scientific production in the area of economics based on the quality of the articles published.

Peer Review System

The received articles will be submitted to an editorial process that will be carried out as follows: The articles received will be evaluated by the Editor and the members of the Scientific and the Editorial Committee, who will determine the pertinence of the manuscript. Once established that the article meets the thematic requirements, in addition to the editorial standards indicated in the Instructions for Authors, it  will be sent to two referees (peer reviewers external to the publishing institution), who will determine anonymously:

1. to publish without changes

2. publish after making adjustments, whether minor or important; and

3. do not publish

∙ In case of discrepancy between the first review, the manuscript will be sent to a third referee, whose decision will define its publication.

∙ When an article  is classified as "publishable with adjustments," the concept or concepts that support it are put to the author's consideration to effect the proposed reforms. The review team will inform the author (s) during the different stages of the editorial process.

The arbitration process of the articles is done in double blind peer review mode or double anonymized review, guaranteeing the confidentiality and anonymity of authors and reviewers.

Evaluation Times: The process of evaluating a document takes about six (6) months between the call of the evaluators, their acceptance and delivery of the concept. This period may be longer or shorter and depends mainly on the achievement of the relevant evaluator, his notification of acceptance of the evaluator and his promptness in sending the concept.

Delivery of corrections: If the concepts of the pairs suggest slight modifications, the authors must adhere to a timeline that does not exceed eight (8) weeks. If an article receives concepts that suppose substantial modifications, and the committee considers that it can be accepted for a new cycle of evaluations, the authors will have to remit their adjustments in a period no longer than 16 weeks. In all cases, an attached report must be submitted, relating the changes that were made to the proposal.

Rejection of articles:  The purpose of the evaluation process in AdC, besides validating the advances in knowledge in our thematic areas, is to offer an opportunity to authors to improve their manuscripts. In this regard, we hope that the authors will benefit from the comments of the referees when their document is rejected for publication.

Although the journal is willing to receive re-considered articles, the authors are asked not to submit a corrected version of a rejected article until the next call. The author must inform the editor in detail that the article has been restructured according to the previous comments. The editor will inform the authors of the time they should wait, if they express interest in submitting their article once again. The definitive rejection of an article will be given when it does not correspond to the editorial or thematic line of the journal.

Notes of interest: The Editor and the Editorial Committee of the journal Apuntes del CENES, are the instances that decide the publication of the originals. We clarify that the sending of material does not oblige its publication. The errors of format and presentation, the non-compliance with the guidelines of the journal or the orthographic and syntactic incorrectness, may be reasons for rejection of the work without passing it to evaluation.

Apuntes del Cenes may publish, in case it has been found, the following scientific malpractices: plagiarism, falsification or invention of data, individual appropriation of collective authorship and duplicate publication for it, all articles are submitted to anti-plagiarism software Turnitin .

If the journal does not respond to the receipt of a work sent within eight (8) days or if you have not received a response within that period, please redirect your message to the email:

The editorial team must inform the author (s) in the different stages of the editorial process.


Publication Frequency

Apuntes del CENES is a biannual publication (published in January and June).
The articles will be received according to the dates established in the call for papers.

Open Access Policy

Apuntes del Cenes provides immediate open access to its content, based on the principle that providing the public with free access to research helps a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Publishing and reproduction of titles, abstracts and full content for academic, scientific, cultural and nonprofit purposes is allowed, when the respective source is acknowledged. This work cannot be used for commercial purposes.

Apuntes del is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.

AdC also adheres to DOAJ’s definition of open access.
AdC Promotes the use and exploitation of open data as established by national open acces policy.

Apuntes del Cenes  does not charge authors for submission or publication.

CC License

This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).  For CC licenses, the principle is that of creative freedom. This system complements copyright without opposing it, aware of its importance in our culture. The content of the articles is the responsibility of each author and does not commit, in any way, the journal or the institution. The disclosure and reproduction of titles, abstracts and total content is allowed, for academic, scientific, cultural purposes, as long as the respective source is cited. This work cannot be used for commercial purposes.

The journal is licensed by Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Ethics Code and Best Practices

(The following guidelines are based on existing ELSIEVER policies and best practice guidelines for editors of scientific journals COPE)

Apuntes del Cenes adheres to the best practices and other ethical provisions of COPE (Committee On Publication Ethics), as well as the provisions of Habeas Data-Statutory Law 1266 of 2008, for the handling of information database staff.

Ethical principles

Articles published in the Apuntes del CENES  are subject to compliance with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Academic Publications established by COPE (See document) and other principles contained in the different declarations and legislation on intellectual property and copyright. Consequently, the authors of the articles accepted for publication and presenting research results must sign the declaration of originality, transfer of rights and full compliance with ethical principles, these documents can be downloaded from the journal's website in the Formats section.

Apuntes del Cenes has a "Zero tolerance regarding Plagiarism" policy. We check for plagiarism through three methods: committee checking, reviewer checking, and plagiarism prevention tools (Turnitin and Ithenticate). All papers will be reviewed by this software before being sent to reviewers.

In the event of any alleged misconduct or unethical conduct by any author or reviewer, the Publisher will initiate an appropriate and thorough investigation. In this way, the journal will resolve any related doubts using COPE's flowcharts, which offer a step-by-step process, for practical use, on handling different aspects of publication ethics issues. They are available individually or as a complete set at the next link.

Author Duties

All manuscripts submitted for possible publication in Apuntes del Cenes must have gone through an exhaustive review process by the authors, respecting the ethical principles of universal scientific publication and the policies defined by the journal.

The authors must give an exact account of their work as well as an objective discussion of their contribution. Data and sources must be accurately presented in the document. Articles must be clear and well structured. Fraudulent, knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles and other professional publications must also be accurate and objective.

Retention and access to data:

Authors must provide the original data in a separate document for editorial review, they must also allow public access to such data, or guarantee their availability after publication.

Originality and plagiarism: Authors must be assured that they have written entirely original works, if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, they should ensure that these have been duly cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing a document of others as their own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of a document of others (without attributing acknowledgement), claiming as their own the results of research carried out by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior, which is unacceptable in scientific publications.

A work that is translated from another language is not considered original.

Autoplagiarism: autoplagiarism is considered the fact that the authors take sections of other works that they have already prepared without citing themselves. It is essential that the document does not have the same coincidences of works that are already published by the authors themselves. The journal also does not accept articles that show excessive use of self-citations and intentional manipulation of citations.

The fabrication of results: is caused by showing data invented by the authors; falsification results when the data is manipulated and changed at the whim of the authors; the omission originates when the authors deliberately hide a fact or data. The journal is guided by international standards on intellectual property and copyright, in order to avoid cases of fabrication, falsification, omission of data and plagiarism.

Concurrent, multiple or redundant publication: In general, an author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research published in more than one journal or primary publication. The presentation of the same manuscript to more than one journal is simultaneously unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit an article prior to consideration of another journal. The publication of some types of articles (for example, methodological guides, translations) in more than one journal, is justifiable in some cases provided specific conditions are met. The authors and publishers of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication which should reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Proper attribution of sources: Always give proper recognition to the work of others. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported without express written permission from the source. The information obtained in the course of confidential, such as arbitration manuscripts or grant applications services should not be used without the express written permission of the author of the work which the information is taken.

The authorship of the document: The authorship of the document should be limited to a maximum of five authors, which have made a significant contribution in the conception, design, execution and interpretation of the article. If there are other professionals who have participated in substantive aspects of the research project, they must be recognized and listed as contributors. The main author must ensure that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the document, agreeing unanimously submission for publication. Whoever appears as the author of the work must have participated in the research process and in the preparation of the material that is presented to the Journal. It is expected that people who did not participate in the described activities do not appear as authors; whoever has only participated in part of these can appear in the acknowledgments section. We invite you to see the manual on authorship of the COPE.

Conflicts of interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial conflict of interest or other interest that might arise in the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should have credits allocated to them. Some examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be manifest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership and professional fees, paid expert testimony, patent or registrations applications and scholarships or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage of the editorial process.

Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his article, it is his obligation to immediately notify the journal editor or editorial board and cooperate with the editor to remove or correct the document. If the editor finds out through a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the editor to briefly correct the article and provide evidence to the author of the correctness of the original document.

All authors must fill and send back the next Forms:

Form 6. Copyright Transfer Form

Form 7. Conflict Relation-Interests Form

Form 8. Compliance with Ethical and Scientific Principle

Form 9. Data Set

We invite authors to review existing guidelines regarding the most common authorship issues faced by COPE members.

Reviewers Duties:

AdC recommends reviewing the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers of COPE

Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through communications with the author may also help improve the drafting and document quality. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and is in the heart of the scientific method. Apuntes del Cenes shares the opinion of many researchers who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to participate fairly in the process of peer review.

Punctuality: Any selected referee who does not feel qualified to review the article should promptly report it is impossible to review its decision informing the editor.

Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be presented or discussed with third parties, except as authorized by the publisher. The arbitration process is carried out in the modality of double-blind peer review, guaranteeing the confidentiality and anonymity of the authors and referees. In case of discrepancy between one of the two evaluators, the text will be sent to a third arbitrator, whose decision will define its publication.

Standards of objectivity: Comments should be carried out objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly, supported by arguments.

Proper recognition of sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published works which have not been cited by the authors. Any statement, observation, derivation, or argument has been previously registered should be accompanied by the appropriate citation. A reviewer should also call the attention of the editor of any substantial or partial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any other published having personal knowledge of the document.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a paper presented at the selection process should not be used Authors' own research without the express written consent of the author. Inside information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not evaluate articles that have conflicts of interest resulting from the relationship or connections of competence, collaboration or otherwise with any of the authors, companies or institutions related texts to evaluate.



2. Who owns peer reviews?


4. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

Our Policy Regarding Malpractice

1. As soon as any alleged misconduct or unethical behaviour on the part of any author(s) or reviewer(s) comes to the attention of the editorial office, the Editor shall immediately begin a proper and thorough investigation. The accused shall be given an adequate opportunity to defend his/her actions and explain his/her position. Based on the available evidence, if it is ascertained that the breach is minor, the Editor shall give to the accused a written stern warning not to repeat the infraction in the future.
2. However, if the breach is determined to be of a serious nature, then the Editor shall inform the editorial advisors within the Apuntes del Cenes and a proper and thorough investigation will commence. The accused shall be given an adequate opportunity to respond to any allegation(s) of wrongdoing. Based on available evidence, if the accused is found to be guilty of misconduct, then, in addition to a stern warning note, the employer of the accused shall be notified about the incident and/or the wrongdoer shall be permanently placed on a blacklist with regard to Apuntes del Cenes.
3. Alternatively, in the event that the available evidence does not lead to a finding of wrongdoing, the accused will be notified in writing of the conclusion of the investigation.
4. In dealing with ethical breach, Apuntes del Cenes shall not discriminate against any accused based on race, religion, gender, age, ethnicity, political belief, sexual orientation, country of origin, etc. All allegations shall be taken seriously and treated in the same manner until a final decision or definitive conclusion is reached.
5. The investigation process shall be carried out in such a way that details of the incident do not spread beyond those individuals with a need to know.

Process for authors to submit an appeal

Complaints may arise over the conduct of editors and/or peer reviewers (eg, breaches of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or misuse of privileged information), or they may arise from disputes about substantive decisions, such as retractions. Still others may be more administrative in nature (eg, irregularities in editorial processes or complaints that journal staff are unresponsive). The Journal will apply the COPE recommendations and guidelines for responding to suspected ethical breeches and in addition, consider the following recomendations  (Pease see the link)


Functions of the scientific committee of the journal:

1. Provide support to the Editorial Committee and the Editor-Editor in formulating editorial policy.
2. Advise the Editorial Committee and the Editor-Director in defining the ethical and scientific quality parameters of the journal.
3. Invite recognized members of the national and international academic community to publish their papers.
4. Promote the dissemination of the journal in national and international academic circles.
5. Participate as evaluators of the papers received for publication or suggest other experts as academic peers.

Functions of the journal's editorial committee:

1. Establish joint editorial policy with the Director-Editor.
2. To propose to the Editor, in the cases he requests, the readers or evaluators for the articles postulated in the journal.
3. Serve as support for editorial coordination of the journal.
4. Promote the dissemination of the journal in national and international academic circles.
5. Participate as an evaluator of the papers received for publication or suggest other experts as academic peers.

Duties of the Editorial Board

Publication decisions: The editor of Apuntes del Cenes (refereed by academic peer) and the Editorial Committee are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The approval of the work in question and its importance for researchers and readers are part of these decisions. The editor is guided by the policies of the Editorial Board of the journal, invoking the in force legal aspects regarding libel, violation of copyright and plagiarism. The editor can seek support from other editors or reviewers for making this decision.

Fair play: An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, if appropriate.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a manuscript submitted for publication in the journal should not be used in an editor's own without the express and written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Editors should not conceptualize  an article if it considers that the document may create conflicts of interest resulting from competitive relations or connections, collaboration or otherwise with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to journals.

Notes: The editor must respond when complaints arise regarding a published article. In addition, shall promptly notify the author of the article also apply due process to the request, shall also provide information deemed relevant to the competent institutions and research organizations, and if the complaint is sustained, the publication should make the correction, retraction The expression of concern, or other note, which may be relevant to clarify the situation. Every act of unethical conduct identified in the publication will be considered, albeit discovered years after publication.

When the author is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal, he will be disqualified for the reviews and decisions that he is responsible for making about the work.



This journal uses the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among partner libraries, allowing them to create permanent archives of the journal for conservation and restoration purposes. More

Once the edited pdf document is available, the self-archive is deposited in the information systems: Open Journal System (OJS). Repository of the Pedagogical and Technological University of Colombia. Additionally, self-archiving is recorded in the other information systems that are required in this procedure. All bibliographic data for each article are cataloged in the database of the Pedagogical and Technological University of Colombia with the corresponding links to the respective repositories. The dates on which said self-filing is carried out correspond to January 1 and July 1 of the corresponding year.

For authors: After an article is published, authors can deposit versions of their work in an institutional or other repository of their choice.


Form # 1. Secretarial Report

Form # 2. Pre assessment of the Editor

Form # 3. Referee report  ESP

Form # 4. Referre report ENG

Form # 5. Reporte del Editor

Form # 6. Copyrightr Transfer Agreement

Form # 7. Conflict Interest

Form # 8. Ethical and Scientific Principles

Form # 9. Dataset


Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Administrativas