The editorial process of Ecos de la Academia is organized into three main stages: initial editorial review, double-blind peer review, and the final editorial decision.

1. Initial editorial review

Authors must be previously registered on the journal’s platform and submit their manuscript through the OJS system of Ecos de la Academia. At this stage, the editorial team conducts a preliminary review of the manuscript and evaluates the following aspects:

1. Whether the manuscript falls within the thematic scope and editorial focus of the journal.
2. The academic quality of the content, disciplinary relevance, scientific nature, interest of the topic, and the currency, pertinence, and coverage of the bibliography.
3. Compliance with formal submission requirements, including the official template, anonymized version for review, metadata, author information, and the article submission letter, when required.
4. The initial verification of originality, similarity, ethical compliance, and declaration of the use of artificial intelligence, where applicable.
5. If the manuscript meets the editorial criteria, it proceeds to the peer review stage. When correctable issues are identified, authors will be notified so that they may make the corresponding corrections within the deadline established by the editorial team.

In cases of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, undeclared or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence, data manipulation, ethical non-compliance, or other serious irregularities, the manuscript may be rejected without being sent to peer review.

2. Peer review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial review are submitted to double-blind peer review. The Editor-in-Chief, in coordination with the editorial team, requests the collaboration of reviewers selected according to their academic suitability, research experience, disciplinary expertise, and absence of conflicts of interest.

1. Each manuscript will be reviewed by at least two specialists in the corresponding field of knowledge.
2. The journal will seek to ensure that at least one reviewer is external to the publishing institution, Universidad Técnica del Norte.
3. Reviewers must have academic training, a research profile, and publications related to the manuscript’s subject area.
4. Reviewers must not have conflicts of interest that could affect the objectivity, independence, confidentiality, or impartiality of the evaluation process.

Reviewers will use the evaluation form provided by the journal through the OJS platform. They may also include qualitative comments or submit a version of the manuscript with anonymous observations, provided that the confidentiality of the process is preserved.

The evaluation process may require several rounds of interaction among reviewers, authors, and the editorial team. Authors whose manuscripts are accepted with revisions must make the requested content, methodological, formal, and stylistic corrections within the deadline established by the editorial team.

The possible reviewer recommendations are:

1. Rejected: the manuscript does not meet the criteria of relevance, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, or academic quality required by the journal.
2. Accepted with major revisions: the manuscript may continue the editorial process after substantial modifications and, where applicable, a new review.
3. Accepted with minor revisions: the manuscript requires specific adjustments before final acceptance.
4. Accepted: the manuscript meets the editorial criteria and may proceed to the editing, layout, and publication stage.

When the editorial team considers it necessary, a third reviewer may be consulted. Their assessment will be considered as input for the final editorial decision.

3. Approval or rejection

The final decision to accept, reject, or request further modifications rests with the editorial team, taking into account the review reports, compliance with the journal’s guidelines, the originality review, the academic quality of the manuscript, ethical standards, and its relevance to the journal’s scope.