Peer review process

IPSUMTEC Journal, published by the Instituto Tecnológico de Milpa Alta, part of the Tecnológico Nacional de México (TecNM), implements a double-blind peer review process for all manuscripts submitted for publication. This mechanism ensures impartiality, scientific rigor, and objectivity in manuscript evaluation, in accordance with international editorial integrity standards promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

1. Stages of the Editorial Process

1.1 Initial Screening (Editorial Evaluation) The Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Committee conducts a preliminary review to verify compliance with submission guidelines, thematic relevance to the journal's scope, and adherence to publication ethics requirements. At this stage, an originality analysis and similarity detection are performed using iThenticate (CrossRef Similarity Check) software. Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria are returned to the authors without proceeding to peer review (desk rejection).

1.2 Reviewer Assignment Every manuscript that passes the initial screening is sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers in the corresponding subject area, selected on the basis of their academic background and publication record. In the event of significant disagreement between the reviewers' reports, the Editorial Committee appoints a third reviewer to resolve the discrepancy.

1.3 Peer Review Process Reviewers systematically assess the manuscript's scientific relevance, originality, methodological rigor, structure, writing quality, and contribution to the state of the art in the discipline. Based on this evaluation, one of the following recommendations is issued:

Accept without modifications.
Accept with minor revisions.
Major revisions required.
Reject.

1.4 Editorial Decision The Editorial Committee comprehensively reviews the reports received and communicates the final decision to the corresponding author. When revisions are required, the author must resubmit the revised version accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response letter addressing the reviewers' comments.

1.5 Estimated Review Time The complete process, from manuscript receipt to communication of the editorial decision, takes approximately four (4) weeks, subject to reviewer availability and the complexity of the required evaluation.

2. Plagiarism Detection and Originality Policy

All manuscripts submitted to IPSUMTEC Journal are screened using iThenticate, a similarity-checking tool provided by CrossRef (Similarity Check). Any evidence of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate/fragmented publication (salami publication) will be handled in accordance with the guidelines and flowcharts issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which may result in immediate rejection of the manuscript, notification to the authors' affiliated institutions, and, where applicable, editorial sanctions.

Further information on this tool: CrossRef Similarity Check.

3. Conflict of Interest and Research Ethics

Authors are required to disclose the existence or absence of financial, academic, or personal conflicts of interest, using the statement: "The authors declare no conflict of interest," or explicitly specifying any relevant relationships.
IPSUMTEC follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for the ethical management of manuscripts and the resolution of research integrity issues.
Studies involving human subjects or animals must demonstrate prior approval from a Research Ethics Committee or an Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Where applicable, the manuscript must include explicit information regarding participants' informed consent and their right to withdraw from the study at any time without adverse consequences.

4. Transparency and Editorial Accountability

IPSUMTEC Journal promotes academic integrity, respect for human rights, and the ethical, responsible dissemination of scientific findings. Reviewers, editors, and members of the Editorial Committee are required to maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts during and after the evaluation process, and must refrain from using unpublished information for personal or third-party benefit.

References

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011). Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2015). COPE flowcharts and infographics — General approach to publication ethics for the editorial office. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/general-approach-publication-ethics-editorial-office

Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ, 323, 1103–1105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103

Last updated: July 30, 2026.