All manuscripts submitted to ACI Avances en Ciencias e Ingenierías undergo a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the editorial process.

As part of this stage, manuscripts are screened using similarity detection tools (Turnitin or Similarity Check).

The resulting reports are evaluated qualitatively by the Editors-in-Chief, who consider the nature of the detected similarities, their proper attribution, and their impact on the originality of the manuscript. The journal does not rely on similarity percentage thresholds as the only basis for editorial decision-making. Instead, each case is assessed on a qualitative basis, considering the nature, extent, and context of the detected similarities.

This evaluation is conducted in accordance with international academic standards and the guidelines established by organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics, prioritizing academic integrity, originality of content, and the appropriate use of sources.

The use of artificial intelligence tools must be transparent, properly disclosed, and must not replace the authors’ intellectual responsibility for the content of the manuscript. For further information, please refer to the Anti-plagiarism and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) policy.

In cases of suspected plagiarism, self-plagiarism, improper use of artificial intelligence, or redundant publication, manuscripts will be evaluated in accordance with the journal’s Code of Ethics and Publication.

If formal requirements are not met, authors will be requested to revise their submission before the review process proceeds. Failure to respond within three weeks may result in the withdrawal of the manuscript from the editorial process.

Manuscripts that pass this stage are assigned to an Associate Editor based on their area of expertise.

2. Peer review

Manuscripts are evaluated by at least two external reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.

Reviewers submit their evaluations through the journal’s editorial workflow on the OJS platform, following the journal’s guidelines and evaluation criteria.

The peer review process is governed by the principles of:

• Confidentiality: all manuscript content is treated as confidential and may not be shared or used without the authors’ explicit authorization.
• Impartiality: evaluations are based solely on the academic merit of the manuscript, without discrimination based on institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, or other personal characteristics.
• Absence of conflicts of interest: reviewers must decline assignments where personal, professional, or financial relationships may influence their judgment.

Reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest prior to accepting the review. If a conflict arises during the evaluation process, it must be immediately reported to the Associate Editor. This process follows the principles outlined in the journal’s Code of Ethics and Publication.

The Editors-in-Chief and Associate Editors may reject a manuscript at any stage of the editorial process if they determine that it does not comply with the journal’s academic or ethical standards.

3. Evaluation criteria

Manuscripts are assessed based on:

• originality, novelty, and relevance;
• methodological rigor and reproducibility;
• quality and consistency of data;
• strength of analysis and discussion;
• relevance and currency of references;
• clarity, organization, and coherence of writing;
• quality of figures and tables;
• consistency between results, discussion, and conclusions.

Please refer to the reviewer report template used by external reviewers.

4. Editorial ethics and good practices

7. Review timeline

8. Production and publication