Evaluation Policy
EKSIGMA applies a double-blind peer review process aimed at ensuring the scientific, methodological, ethical, and editorial quality of submitted manuscripts. Throughout the evaluation process, the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential.
The editorial process follows these stages:
- Submission and initial screening
The Editor-in-Chief verifies that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s thematic scope, complies with the author guidelines, and includes the required documentation. - Originality and formal requirements review
Originality and similarity are assessed in accordance with EKSIGMA’s Plagiarism Detection Policy. Compliance with manuscript structure, citation and reference standards, tables, figures, and applicable ethical requirements is also reviewed. - Preliminary editorial review
The Editor-in-Chief, with support from the editorial team when appropriate, determines whether the manuscript meets the minimum requirements of relevance, quality, and methodological rigor to proceed. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external peer review. - Assignment of external peer reviewers
Manuscripts that pass the preliminary review are sent to a minimum of two external reviewers, either national or international, with demonstrated expertise in the manuscript’s subject area and no conflict of interest with the authors or the research being evaluated. - Scientific evaluation
Reviewers assess, among other aspects: relevance of the research problem, currency and adequacy of the theoretical framework, methodological clarity, quality and consistency of results, discussion, conclusions, contribution to knowledge, academic writing, and compliance with bibliographic standards. - Editorial decision
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:ü Accept the manuscript.
ü Accept subject to minor revisions.
ü Request major revisions and a new evaluation.
ü Reject the manuscript.
ü Request an evaluation by a third reviewer when reports are contradictory or when an additional specialized opinion is necessary.
- Revisions and final decision
When revisions are required, authors must submit a revised version and, where appropriate, a reasoned response to the reviewers’ comments. The final decision on publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief of EKSIGMA. - Confidentiality and conflicts of interest
Reviewers, editors, and authors must disclose any conflicts of interest. Manuscripts and review reports are handled confidentially throughout the editorial process. - Expected editorial processing times
Initial editorial assessment: approximately 7 days.
Peer-review process: approximately 42 days.
Editorial decision, corrections and preparation for publication: approximately 35 days.
The complete editorial process normally takes approximately 12 weeks, although this period may vary depending on reviewer availability and the revisions required.
