PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Manuscript Evaluation in CerebrIQ International Journal (CRQIJ)

CerebrIQ International Journal (CRQIJ), published by DB Ediciones, is an annual journal founded in 2025. Its double-blind peer review system ensures the quality, originality, and impact of the articles, guaranteeing an impartial evaluation based on the relevance and scientific rigor of the submitted manuscripts.

The review is carried out by recognized experts, free from conflicts of interest regarding the evaluated work. These reviewers, selected for their academic background and experience, collaborate with the Editorial Committee to validate the originality, methodological soundness, and suitability of the article to the journal’s standards.

CRQIJ has a constantly growing international network of reviewers, made up of PhD researchers or specialists with publications in journals indexed in high-impact databases such as Web of Science and Scopus.

The process is confidential: reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality about the manuscripts and may not disclose or use their content. If additional expert opinions are required, the authors will be informed in advance.

This rigorous evaluation procedure reflects the commitment of CRQIJ to academic excellence and the dissemination of high-impact knowledge on a global scale.

Initial Review

In the initial stage, the editorial team of CerebrIQ International Journal (CRQIJ) conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscripts received. Within a maximum of 72 hours, authors receive an email notification with a unique reference number. During this stage, the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Editor examines the document to determine its coherence with the journal’s focus and standards, assessing originality, academic relevance, and contribution to scientific knowledge. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they do not fit the journal’s scope, present structural deficiencies, fail to clearly describe their findings, or if plagiarism is detected. In such cases, authors are notified within the indicated timeframe. If doubts arise, editors may consult the scientific committee.

Articles that pass this initial review move on to the peer review stage. Within a maximum of 30 days after submission, authors are informed of the result. Approved papers are sent to specialized reviewers, who may be part of the journal’s panel or external experts, usually researchers or faculty members from national and international graduate programs.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that reach this stage are subjected to double-blind peer review. Each reviewer completes a detailed form evaluating aspects such as:

  • Academic relevance and contribution to scientific knowledge.

  • Clarity and coherence in writing.

  • Theoretical rigor and logical structure of the content.

  • Proper and up-to-date use of bibliographic sources.

  • Methodological soundness and appropriateness of research design.

  • Depth and coherence of analysis.

  • Originality and value of conclusions.

The estimated time to complete this review is up to 30 days. At the end of the process, authors receive the editorial decision. If modifications are requested, authors have between 8 and 15 days to make them, as indicated by the editor.

Once revisions are completed, manuscripts undergo editorial checks including grammar and spelling review, verification of compliance with guidelines, and final editing. However, completion of this process does not guarantee immediate publication, as the final decision depends on the editors, who take into account the editorial policy, priorities, and publication schedule.

Review Process Details

Role of the Academic Editor: Oversees the entire evaluation process, determining the need for additional reviews depending on the manuscript’s quality and rigor. Reviewers have a maximum of eight days to submit their report. In case of delays, authors are informed in a timely manner.

Reviewer Confidentiality: Reviewer anonymity is guaranteed throughout the process, except in cases where reviewers choose to disclose their identity.

Number of Assigned Reviewers: Generally, manuscripts are evaluated by two subject experts. However, the Academic Editor may request additional reviews for a more thorough assessment.

Manuscript Status Monitoring: The editorial system updates the status to "Required revisions completed" once authors have made the requested changes. This status does not imply the completion of the process, as further evaluations may be required.

Editorial Decision Making: The Academic Editor issues the final decision regarding the publication of the manuscript, based on the received reviews and technical judgment. The resolution is communicated to the authors through the submission system and email. During this period, the manuscript status remains "Decision in process" until the final notification.