Peer Review

Pulso Científico is a Multidisciplinary Journal that subjects original articles to a peer-review process involving academic peers, which includes:

Review by at least 2 peer reviewers external to the Editorial Board.

Double-blind system: The identity of the peer reviewers and the author remains concealed.

Process transparency: Authors and reviewers are informed about the review phases, deadlines, and methods for resolving disputes.

Pulso Científico Multidisciplinary Journal will accept articles corresponding to theoretical or empirical works.

Article Types and Evaluation Process

Article types:

Scientific research articles

Theoretical-reflective articles

Evaluation process:

Manuscript reception

Initial review

External double-blind peer review

Second version of the manuscript

Second review round

Final verdict

Publication

The journal subjects all articles to a rigorous evaluation process to ensure the quality and validity of published works.

Once the editorial team approves the manuscript submission for external evaluation, two anonymous reviewers are assigned to evaluate the manuscript through the journal's platform, following the corresponding evaluation guidelines for theoretical or research articles.

At the end of the evaluation, a verdict is issued, which can be: acceptance, acceptance with minor revisions, acceptance with major revisions, or rejection. Evaluators must assess whether the manuscript meets the formatting and content criteria, providing an overall assessment with comments and recommendations.

If there is a disagreement between the evaluators' opinions, the manuscript is submitted to a third expert for evaluation. Based on this additional verdict, the editorial committee decides whether to reject the article or request modifications.

Evaluators are subject matter experts, external to the editorial committee, and preferably from countries other than those of the authors.

Content Evaluation Procedure

Abstract:

General objective and scope.

Methodology used.

Key results.

Main conclusions.

Introduction:

Problem statement.

Theoretical framework and state of the art.

Criteria for choosing the method.

Specific objectives or hypotheses.

Method:

Research model.

Approach (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed).

Research details:

Typology.

Information sources.

Units of analysis.

Variable control.

Scope.

Data collection instruments and procedures.

Data analysis and processing.

Results:

Description of key findings according to the study type:

Literature review: synthesis or meta-analysis.

Case studies: main discoveries.

Empirical research: hypothesis demonstration.

Methodological articles: proposed procedure.

Theoretical articles: principles.

Discussion:

Exposition of principles and relationships.

Identification of exceptions and unresolved aspects.

Comparison with previous work.

Conclusions and supporting evidence.

Style and Formatting

Verification of:

Spelling and page count.

Title and author formatting.

Tables, figures, and references.

Consistency in verb usage and punctuation marks.

Font style and size.

Consistent use of text and footnotes.

Originality

Verification of the research's originality.

The Scientific Committee is responsible for the final decision.

Complementary Procedure

Dispatch of letters of:

Acceptance from the Editorial Board.

Author identification from the author.