Welcome to Cultura Científica. We invite submissions of full-length manuscripts and concise reports presenting original, high-quality contributions. There are no fixed length limits; however, authors are encouraged to write clearly and present their results in an accessible, well-structured manner. Please submit your manuscript as an email attachment to revistaculturacientifica@gmail.com.
What happens after submission?
1) Submission receipt and technical screening
After submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial check to confirm:
the manuscript is complete and readable (main text, figures/tables, references, supplementary files),
compliance with the Author Guidelines (format, structure, required sections),
the work fits the journal’s Aims & Scope,
required declarations are included where applicable (funding, conflicts of interest, ethics approval/consent, data availability).
Timeline: within 3–5 business days of submission. Out-of-scope or incomplete submissions may be returned for correction or declined without external review to avoid unnecessary delays.
2) Editorial assessment (desk review)
The Editor-in-Chief and/or Handling Editor evaluates whether the manuscript meets the journal’s minimum scientific and ethical standards, including:
originality and contribution,
methodological soundness and clarity,
ethical compliance and responsible reporting,
suitability for single-blind peer review.
Possible outcomes:
proceed to external review,
request minor technical corrections before review,
desk rejection with reasons (e.g., out of scope, insufficient quality, ethical concerns).
Timeline: typically 7–10 days from submission (including the technical screening stage).
3) Reviewer selection and invitation
The Handling Editor selects reviewers based on subject expertise, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest. The journal normally seeks at least two independent external reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited for interdisciplinary topics or specialized methods.
Reviewers are expected to:
declare any conflict of interest,
treat manuscripts as confidential,
provide objective, evidence-based evaluations.
Timeline: invitations typically sent within 3–7 days after the editorial assessment. If reviewers decline, additional invitations are issued promptly.
4) External peer review (single-blind)
Reviewers assess the manuscript for:
novelty and relevance,
scientific rigor (design, methods, analysis, interpretation),
validity of results and conclusions,
clarity, organization, and quality of figures/tables,
adequacy of references and positioning in the literature,
ethical considerations and transparency of reporting.
Reviewers submit:
comments to the authors (constructive and actionable),
an overall recommendation (accept / minor revision / major revision / reject),
optional confidential comments to the editor.
Timeline: reviewers are normally given 14–21 days to complete a review. The journal may grant short extensions when needed to ensure a thorough evaluation.
5) Editorial decision
The editor makes a decision based on reviewer reports and editorial judgment. Possible decisions are:
Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject
If reviewer opinions conflict substantially, the editor may:
request clarification from reviewers,
seek an additional review,
or make a final decision with justification.
Timeline: first decision is typically communicated within 4–6 weeks of submission, depending on reviewer availability.
6) Revisions and author response
For revision decisions, authors must submit:
a revised manuscript (with changes clearly indicated where possible), and
a point-by-point response to reviewers explaining how each comment was addressed (or providing a reasoned response if not adopted).
Recommended revision windows:
Minor Revision: 7–14 days
Major Revision: 21–45 days
Extensions may be granted upon request when justified.
7) Re-review (when applicable)
Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the editor without sending back to reviewers, provided the changes are straightforward and adequately addressed.
Major revisions are typically returned to the original reviewers for confirmation that concerns were resolved. If original reviewers are unavailable, substitute reviewers may be appointed.
Timeline: re-review typically 7–14 days, depending on revision scope and reviewer availability.
8) Acceptance and immediate publication after copyediting
Once a manuscript is accepted, it enters production:
copyediting (language, consistency, formatting, references, metadata),
layout/typesetting,
author proofing (final checks, minor corrections only).
Publication timing: Articles are published immediately after copyediting and final proof approval, under the journal’s continuous-publication model. The final published version is the version of record.
Timeline: production and copyediting are typically completed within 5–10 business days after acceptance (complex figures or extensive formatting may require additional time).
9) Continuous publication and annual issue compilation
Cultura Científica practices continuous publication: each accepted article is published online as soon as it completes production. Published articles are later compiled into the journal’s annual volume (one volume containing one issue).
10) Confidentiality and ethical standards
All submissions are treated as confidential by editors and reviewers.
Reviewers must not share manuscripts or use unpublished information for personal advantage.
The journal follows strict policies against plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, and unethical research practices.
If misconduct is suspected, the journal may conduct an internal review, request clarifications or raw data, and take appropriate actions, including rejection, publication of corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions when necessary.
11) Conflicts of interest
Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence judgment. When conflicts exist:
reviewers must decline the review,
editors may reassign handling,
disclosures may be published with the article when relevant.
12) Reviewer expectations and quality
Reviewers are expected to provide:
respectful, constructive feedback,
specific, actionable recommendations,
fair evaluation based on evidence and scholarly standards,
timely responses.
The journal may evaluate review quality and timeliness to maintain a dependable reviewer pool.
