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

Peer Review

Inquietud Empresarial evaluates all manuscripts through a double-blind peer review system, which consists of the following phases:

  • Editorial Evaluation. All submitted manuscripts undergo an editorial screening to ensure that the necessary submission documents (commitment letter, conflict-of-interest form) are properly completed. Subsequently, the manuscript is checked using anti-plagiarism software. If issues are detected, authors will be notified.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening for formal requirements and originality are further assessed by the editors for quality, determining if they merit full external peer review. This evaluation includes a review of manuscript structure, bibliographic support, essential conceptual or methodological aspects, and alignment with the thematic scope of the journal or a specific issue (in cases of special editions). Manuscripts deemed suitable proceed to peer review, while those needing corrections or clarification will be returned to authors with specific guidance.

  • Reviewer Selection and Invitation. The journal identifies and invites reviewers for each accepted manuscript based on their academic background, research experience, specific area of expertise, and recent publications related to the manuscript's topic.

Review timelines depend on manuscript complexity and specific reviewer circumstances. However, the journal generally suggests a 2–4-week review period, with potential extensions if required. If a reviewer fails to deliver the promised feedback, the editor may reassign the manuscript to an alternative reviewer.

  • Evaluation Criteria. The journal provides a structured evaluation form to guide reviewers in both quantitative and qualitative assessments of each manuscript. Reviewers evaluate aspects such as structure, language quality, handling of figures and tables, as well as theoretical, methodological, analytical depth, bibliographic relevance and currency, and significance of results or conclusions.

Manuscript assessment will also consider the manuscript type, distinguishing between research articles, case studies, methodologies, review articles, bibliometrics, or scientometrics.

Review Outcomes
Peer review outcomes fall into one of four categories:

  1. Publishable without Modifications: If deemed publishable without changes, the editorial board and editor-in-chief will determine if any minor adjustments are necessary for formatting.
  2. Publishable with Minor Modifications: If publishable with minor modifications, the editorial board and editor-in-chief will decide if the article, after author revisions, can be published in that version or if another review round is needed.
  3. Requires Another Peer Review Round: When further peer review is deemed necessary, the author is informed of the required corrections and decides whether to undertake them. If the author opts not to make the revisions, they should communicate their decision in writing to the editorial board.
  4. Not Publishable: This outcome will be accompanied by reviewer comments recommending areas of the manuscript that need to be revised, improved, or restructured.

Editor Responsibilities and Author Feedback: Editors are responsible for reviewing each evaluation received and consolidating a comprehensive response for authors. Authors may express their dissatisfaction with a peer review outcome to the editor but must provide academic or scientific arguments or evidence to support their disagreement with the reviewer's comments.

While the journal is not obligated to reconsider a decision following a response from the authors, each case will be assessed to determine if the authors' claim is justified. This may lead to requests for clarification from the reviewers or, in some cases, the appointment of an additional reviewer.

Corrections and Verification: Once feedback from the two or three reviewers is consolidated, the journal will issue a unified outcome to inform the authors. Articles accepted with the condition of revision must be returned with a detailed response letter explaining the adjustments made and addressing each reviewer’s comments. These revisions will be verified by the reviewers, and based on their approval or further recommendations, the editor will make a final decision regarding the manuscript.

If a revised manuscript continues to exhibit issues previously flagged by one or more reviewers, authors will be given one final opportunity to make the necessary corrections. If the issues remain unresolved, the manuscript may be rejected at this stage. Failure to submit a revised version within the agreed timeline between the authors and editor could also lead to rejection, unless an extension for revisions is requested.

Timeline of the Review Process: On average, the complete evaluation cycle for a manuscript that successfully progresses through all stages takes approximately three months. If difficulties arise in securing available reviewers or there are delays in receiving evaluations, the journal will take measures to reassign manuscripts and notify authors accordingly.

Inquiries, Claims, and Requests: In case of dissatisfaction with any evaluation outcome, the review process, or any specific request, authors are encouraged to write directly to the journal’s contact address. These inquiries will be reviewed by the editors or editor-in-chief.