Peer Review

ditorial Process Guidelines: Pulso Científico Revista Multidisciplinaria

Pulso Científico Multidisciplinary Journales tablishes an editorial workflow designed to ensure the quality, originality, scientific relevance, and academic rigor of all submitted manuscripts. Consequently, submissions undergo sequential evaluation stages, the outcomes of which determine their progression within the editorial process.

1. Submission and Manuscript Receipt

The corresponding author must submit the manuscript through the journal's editorial management platform, accompanied by a declaration of originality and exclusivity agreement, duly signed by the corresponding author and all co-authors.

Through this declaration, the authors certify that the work constitutes an original contribution, has not been previously published, and is not currently under consideration by any other journal or publication venue. Furthermore, the authors acknowledge and accept the editorial policies, guidelines, and standards established by Pulso Científico Multidisciplinary Journal.

Where applicable, supplementary files, datasets, instruments, appendixes, or other supporting documentation must be submitted to verify the authenticity, traceability, and consistency of the presented findings.

To ensure an impartial evaluation, manuscripts submitted for peer review must be fully anonymized, containing no author names, institutional affiliations, or any other identifying details that could compromise the double-blind review process.

2. Preliminary Editorial Screening

Upon receipt of the manuscript, the editorial team—comprising the Chief Editor, Section Editors, or the Editorial Board—conducts a preliminary assessment. The objective of this phase is to verify compliance with formal and editorial requirements and to assess thematic relevance, academic rigor, structural soundness, methodological coherence, proper bibliographical sourcing, and overall originality.

As part of this desk review, manuscripts undergo automated similarity screening and content analysis using artificial intelligence detection tools, in accordance with the journal’s academic integrity policies.

During preliminary screening, the editorial team may request revisions concerning academic writing, manuscript structure, bibliographical references, citation format, and compliance with current APA style or other applicable editorial standards.

Manuscripts that fail to comply with journal guidelines, present substantial academic or methodological deficiencies, show evidence of prior publication, or lack sufficient scientific relevance may be rejected at this stage.

Timeline for Preliminary Editorial Screening

• The outcome of the preliminary assessment will be communicated to the corresponding author within a maximum of seven (7) calendar days from manuscript receipt.
• When the editorial team requests revisions prior to peer review, authors are granted a maximum of seven (7) calendar days to submit the revised version.
• Failure to meet this deadline may result in the termination of the editorial process, unless a formal extension is requested in a timely manner and granted by the editorial team.

3. Thematic Relevance and Reviewer Availability

Given its multidisciplinary scope, Pulso Científico Multidisciplinary Journal considers contributions across diverse fields of knowledge. Acceptance of a manuscript is contingent, among other factors, upon its alignment with the scientific and editorial scope of the journal.

When a submission falls into a highly specialized area for which the internal reviewer database lacks sufficient expertise, the editorial team may recruit external specialists to ensure that the evaluation maintains the highest standards of quality, independence, and technical relevance.

4. External Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary editorial screening proceed to external double-blind peer review.

The process typically involves two national or international peer reviewers, selected based on their expertise in the relevant subject area. Both author and reviewer identities remain strictly confidential throughout the evaluation process.

Reviewers receive the manuscript along with standardized evaluation protocols to assess scientific merit, relevance, methodology, results, discussion, references, and overall compliance with academic standards.

Authors bear full responsibility for the content, data, results, interpretations, and statements expressed in their manuscripts. Consequently, published views do not necessarily reflect the official position of Pulso Científico Revista Multidisciplinaria.

Timeline for Peer Review

• Each reviewer is granted a minimum of ten (10) and a maximum of twenty-one (21) calendar days to complete the evaluation and submit their report.
• Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations in accordance with principles of confidentiality, objectivity, impartiality, independence, accountability, respect, diligence, and academic integrity.

5. Peer Review Outcomes

Based on their evaluation, reviewers will issue one of the following recommendations:

• Accept: The manuscript meets established scientific and editorial standards and requires no substantial modifications.
• Accept with Minor Revisions: Specific minor adjustments are required that do not significantly alter the manuscript's structure or scientific core.
• Resubmit for Review (Major Revisions): The manuscript requires substantial revisions, which must be evaluated in a secondary review round.
• Reject and Recommend Alternative Venue: The manuscript possesses potential academic value but does not sufficiently align with the journal's scope.
• Reject: The manuscript fails to meet the required scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards.
• Additional Comments: Reviewers may include specific qualitative feedback to justify their recommendation and guide authors in improving the manuscript.

Upon completion of the evaluations, all reviewer reports are submitted to the managing editor for final consideration.

6. Editorial Decision

Upon receipt of the review reports, the editor conducts a comprehensive analysis of the recommendations and issues a formal editorial decision.

The decision will be communicated to the corresponding author within a maximum of three (3) business days following receipt of all completed reviewer reports. This communication preserves complete reviewer confidentiality.

6.1. Acceptance Without Revisions

When the editorial decision is acceptance without modifications, the manuscript advances directly to the production phase, which includes copyediting, typesetting, and final proof preparation.

6.2. Conditional Acceptance (Minor Revisions)

If minor revisions are required, the corresponding author will be notified and must submit the revised manuscript within a maximum of fourteen (14) calendar days.

Requests for deadline extensions must be submitted via official editorial communication channels prior to the expiration date. Upon receipt of the revised manuscript, the editor will verify the changes and render a final decision within seven (7) calendar days.

6.3. Major Revisions

When major revisions are required, the corresponding author must address all comments and resubmit the revised manuscript within a maximum of forty-five (45) calendar days.

If additional time is required, authors must contact the editorial team promptly with a formal justification. Manuscripts requiring major revisions may undergo a second round of peer review. Depending on the extent of the revisions, the editorial team will determine whether to proceed with the evaluation process and consider the paper for a subsequent issue.

6.4. Rejection

If the editorial decision is rejection, the outcome will be communicated to the corresponding author, accompanied by written justification where appropriate.

The Editorial Board of Pulso Científico Multidisciplinary Journal reserves the right to reject any manuscript that fails to satisfy standards of thematic relevance, academic quality, methodological rigor, originality, scientific integrity, or formal editorial requirements.

7. Response to Reviewer Comments

When revisions are requested, the corresponding author must submit a detailed, point-by-point response addressing all reviewer comments.

Authors must prepare a formal Response to Reviewers document that reproduces or clearly itemizes each reviewer comment, followed by a specific explanation of the changes made. Authors must precisely indicate where modifications were incorporated (referencing page numbers, sections, or line numbers). Additionally, revised text should be clearly highlighted within the manuscript if requested by the editorial office.

The response document must be articulated in a clear, respectful, and academically grounded manner, as it may be forwarded directly to the reviewers for verification.

8. Second Round of Review

Pulso Científico Multidisciplinary Journal may initiate a second round of peer review or invite a third reviewer under specific circumstances, including:

• Substantial Discrepancy Between Reviews: Significant divergence between initial reviewer recommendations where an additional expert opinion is deemed necessary.
• Inability to Complete Evaluation: Unforeseen circumstances preventing an assigned reviewer from completing the evaluation within the stipulated timeframe, requiring replacement by another expert.

When a third evaluation is required, the newly assigned reviewer will be given a minimum of ten (10) and a maximum of twenty-one (21) calendar days to submit their report.

Manuscripts undergoing a second review cycle may be rescheduled for publication in a subsequent issue, subject to the current publication schedule and successful completion of the review process.

9. Estimated Timeline for the Evaluation Process

The estimated duration of the evaluation process—from initial receipt to communication of the editorial decision—is approximately forty-five (45) calendar days, provided authors adhere to set deadlines and no exceptional delay occurs regarding reviewer availability or additional review rounds.

All indicated timeframes are estimates and may be extended whenever necessary to guarantee a rigorous, objective, and specialized review process.

10. Copyediting and Production

Upon final acceptance, the manuscript enters the copyediting, layout, and production stage.

The PDF galley proof will be sent to the corresponding author for final verification. Authors are allowed a maximum of seven (7) calendar days to review the proof and submit any strictly necessary corrections prior to publication.

At this stage, author requests must be limited to typos, layout adjustments, grammatical corrections, or minor formal formatting issues identified during proofreading. Substantial changes to scientific content will not be permitted without explicit editorial approval.

Upon receipt of the corresponding author's final approval, the definitive version will be authorized for publication.

11. Publication

Following the completion of evaluation, revision, copyediting, and final author approval, the manuscript will be published on the official platform of Pulso Científico Multidisciplinary Journal in accordance with the editorial schedule.

The total estimated turnaround time for the complete workflow—from initial submission to final publication readiness—is approximately ten (10) weeks, subject to timely compliance by authors, peer reviewers, and the editorial staff.

12. Call for Papers and Submission Schedule

Pulso Científico Multidisciplinary Journal maintains an open, year-round call for papers. For editorial planning and scheduling purposes, submissions are grouped into four quarterly review cycles:

• First Period: January – March
• Second Period: April – June
• Third Period: July – September
• Fourth Period: October – December

Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance or publication. All submissions remain subject to editorial policy compliance, formal requirements, originality criteria, peer review, and final decision by the Editorial Board.

Authors may track manuscript status by logging into the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. All official notifications, anonymized reviewer reports, and editorial decisions will be made available through this portal.

13. Final Editorial Provisions

The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board of Pulso Científico Multidisciplinary Journal hold final responsibility for upholding the journal’s standards of academic quality and scientific rigor.

Accordingly, the editorial team retains full authority to accept, request revisions for, or reject manuscripts based on evaluations conducted at any stage of the editorial process.

Furthermore, editorial staff may request structural adjustments to titles, abstracts, keywords, reference lists, formal presentation, citation style, and language formatting as necessary to maintain the quality and consistency of the publication.

Prior to final publication, authors will receive the definitive version of the manuscript for final review and sign-off, in accordance with the timelines set forth in these editorial policies.