Cultura Científica applies a rigorous single-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and relevance of all published content. In a single-blind review, reviewers know the identity of the author(s), while authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
1) Submission and initial checks
After submission, the Editorial Office performs an initial screening to confirm:
the manuscript fits the journal’s aims and scope,
the file is complete and readable, and follows the Author Guidelines,
required statements (e.g., ethics, conflicts of interest, funding) are provided where applicable,
basic language quality is sufficient for review.
Manuscripts that are out of scope, incomplete, or clearly below minimum standards may be returned to authors for correction or declined without external review to avoid delays.
2) Editorial assessment (Desk review)
The Editor-in-Chief and/or a Handling Editor evaluates the submission for:
originality and scholarly contribution,
soundness of methods and argumentation,
clarity, structure, and compliance with publication ethics,
suitability for peer review.
At this stage, a manuscript may be:
sent forward to review,
returned for minor technical corrections before review,
rejected with an editorial explanation (desk rejection) if it does not meet journal standards.
3) Reviewer selection and invitation
If advanced to peer review, the editor appoints independent expert reviewers whose expertise matches the topic. Reviewers are selected based on:
subject-area knowledge and publication record,
absence of conflicts of interest,
ability to provide an objective and timely review.
Typically, the journal seeks at least two external reviews. Additional reviewers may be invited when:
the topic is interdisciplinary,
methods require specialized evaluation,
reports conflict strongly.
4) Single-blind peer review
Reviewers assess the manuscript using a structured evaluation that may include:
importance and novelty of the research question,
appropriateness and rigor of methods (qualitative, quantitative, theoretical, or applied),
validity of results and interpretation,
quality of presentation (figures, tables, references, writing),
ethical considerations (human/animal ethics approvals, consent, data integrity),
relevance to the journal and regional/global contribution.
Reviewers provide:
confidential comments to the editor (optional), and
constructive comments to the authors with clear, actionable recommendations.
5) Editorial decision
After receiving reviewer reports, the editor makes one of the following decisions:
Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject
The decision is based on reviewer recommendations, the editor’s assessment, and journal standards. If reviews differ significantly, the editor may:
request clarification,
consult an additional reviewer,
or make an independent judgment with justification.
6) Revision and re-review
If revision is required, authors must submit:
a revised manuscript, and
a response to reviewers explaining how each comment was addressed (or respectfully justified if not).
For major revisions, the manuscript is often returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. For minor revisions, the editor may decide without re-review if changes are clear and sufficient.
7) Final acceptance and production
Once accepted, manuscripts proceed to:
copyediting (language, style, consistency),
layout/typesetting (including figures and metadata),
author proofreading (final corrections only),
final publication.
8) Continuous publication and issue compilation
Cultura Científica follows continuous publication: accepted articles are published online as soon as production is complete. Articles are then compiled into the journal’s annual volume (one issue per year).
9) Confidentiality, ethics, and conflicts of interest
All parties must uphold publication ethics:
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not share or use unpublished content.
Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal) and decline review when conflicts exist.
The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or unethical research practices. Suspected misconduct may lead to rejection, correction, or retraction in line with standard publishing ethics practice.
10) Reviewer conduct and quality expectations
Reviewers are expected to provide:
objective, evidence-based critiques,
respectful, constructive language,
clear recommendations and specific improvement points,
timely responses.
The Editorial Office may evaluate review quality to maintain high standards and may refrain from re-inviting reviewers who repeatedly submit low-quality or late reviews.
