Peer-review policy

The peer-review process is fundamental to ensuring the quality and integrity of research published in Investigación en Discapacidad. Our aim is to maintain high standards of scholarship and to provide authors with constructive feedback to improve their work. To achieve this, we employ a double-blind peer-review process, wherein the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other. We are committed to upholding the highest standards of scholarly publishing and providing authors with fair and constructive feedback to improve their research.

The Editorial Team is responsible for selecting qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript topic. Efforts will be made to avoid conflicts of interest between reviewers and authors. The Editorial Team will ensure the confidentiality of the peer-review process and protect the anonymity of both authors and reviewers.

The Editor-in-Chief will make final decisions on manuscript acceptance, based on the recommendations of the reviewers and the overall quality and suitability of the manuscript for publication. Authors who disagree with the editorial decision may appeal by providing a detailed rebuttal of the reviewers’ comments and the editorial decision. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editorial Board, and a final decision will be communicated to the authors.

Authors should address all comments and suggestions raised by the reviewers in a detailed and respectful manner. They should provide a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment, explaining any changes made to the manuscript.

Guidelines for Reviewers:

  1. Confidentiality:

    • Reviewers must treat all submissions as confidential documents. This includes not disclosing any details of the manuscript or the review process to anyone outside of the peer-review process, including colleagues or social media platforms.
    • Reviewers should not retain copies of the manuscript after the review process is complete, and should delete any electronic copies securely.

  2. Impartiality:

    • Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively, without any bias based on factors such as the authors’ identity, affiliation, nationality, or previous work.
    • Any personal biases or conflicts of interest that may affect the reviewer's impartiality should be declared to the Editorial Office (indiscap@inr.gob.mx).

  3. Expertise and Qualifications:

    • Reviewers should only accept invitations to review manuscripts in their areas of expertise, where they feel confident in their ability to provide a thorough and fair assessment.
    • If a reviewer feels unqualified to review a particular manuscript, they should decline the invitation and suggest alternative reviewers if possible.

  4. Timeliness:

    • Reviewers are expected to acknowledge receipt of the manuscript promptly and to submit their reviews within the agreed-upon timeframe. This timeframe is typically set by the Editorial Office and may vary depending on the urgency of the review process.
    • If reviewers anticipate any delays in completing their review, they should inform the Editorial Office (indiscap@inr.gob.mx) as soon as possible, providing an estimated timeline for completion.

  5. Constructive Feedback:

    • Reviews should provide constructive feedback to help authors improve the quality and clarity of their work. This may include identifying strengths and weaknesses in the manuscript, suggesting revisions or additional experiments, and offering guidance on how to address any concerns raised.
    • Reviewers should avoid making derogatory or inflammatory comments and should focus on providing objective and actionable feedback.

  6. Conflicts of Interest:

    • Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their assessment of the manuscript. This includes conflicts such as personal relationships with the authors, competitive or collaborative connections, or financial interests related to the research.
    • If a reviewer feels unable to provide an impartial review due to a conflict of interest, they should decline the invitation to review and notify the Editorial Office (indiscap@inr.gob.mx).
    • Reviewers are not allowed to suggest including references for any particular study, only general recommendations are accepted (i.e. the authors should include some recent studies on language disorders).

  7. Adherence to Journal Guidelines:

    • Reviewers should ensure that the manuscript adheres to the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines. Any deviations from these guidelines should be noted in the review.
    • Reviewers should also check for adherence to ethical standards in research conduct, such as proper citation of sources, appropriate use of data, and compliance with relevant regulations and guidelines.

By following these guidelines, we aim to promote transparency, rigor, and excellence in disability research. Reviewers can contribute to maintaining the quality and integrity of the peer-review process and uphold the standards of excellence in scholarly publishing upheld by Investigación en Discapacidad.