Peer Review Process

Evaluation and Reviewers Guideline

The Editorial Committee will review the texts and evaluate them according to the basic criteria established in the Guidelines for Authors. If the content complies with the Focus and Scope, as well as the Section Policies, it will be sent to a next revision stage for the respective evaluation at least two specialists in the subject, national and international, who determine the originality, relevance, depth and quality of the work. (Reviewers Format)

In case of contradictions between the two, a third reviewer is requested to review it. The anonymity of authors and arbitrators is guaranteed.

The following evaluation criteria will be highlighted:

For research articles, research articles or technical notes:

1. That are unpublished originality, relevance of research to the field of knowledge
2. Appropriate and rigorous methodology
3. Results and clear discussions
4. Basis of the conclusions
5. Clear exposition of ideas
6. Congruence between the objective, methodology, results and conclusions
7. Relevance and timeliness of the cited references

For trials, reviews or reviews:
1. That are unpublished originality, timeliness and timeliness of information
2. Clarity in the exhibition of ideas
3. Relevance and timeliness of the cited references

Evaluation Procedure

Once the contributions of the authors are received, the following procedure is followed:

1. Acknowledgment of receipt addressed to the author (s) via email
2. Preliminary evaluation of the document by the editorial committee for verification: a) if it complies with the editorial policy of the journal, and b) if it complies with the standards and other established requirements.
3. If it complies, it is sent to the arbitrators of national and international character, external and internal to the institution, specialists in the areas concerning the content of the article, who issue a verdict on the publication or not of the work.
4. If the work or article does not comply with the rules and requirements, the decision will be notified in writing to the author (s) via email with the respective observations that justify the non-approval.
5. If the work complies but has significant observations, the author (s) is sent the same to make the suggested changes via email. A document called "Review Report" will be attached to the communication, specifying the details observed to be improved, both by the evaluators and the editorial committee.
6. When the work is returned, the author (s) is forwarded to the arbitrators to verify the changes made based on the observations they have issued.
7. The arbitration of the submitted works is carried out in the "double blind" modality and is sent to two arbitrators together with an evaluation form (Reviewers Format)
8. If one of the reviewers does not agree with the publication of the article, then the document will be sent to a third reviewer to conclude with the opinion of whether the document is published or not
9. The review process is estimated at an average of three (3) months
10. In case the author or authors are not satisfied with the review process, they should write a document with the respective observations, it will be sent to the evaluators for the final review. And in this way culminate with the evaluation process.

Decision

(a) Approved, published. The manuscript is accepted to be published.
(b) Approved with suggestions, publish. The author will receive a letter in which the observations highlighted by the evaluators or reviewers are reflected. Additionally, if required, the manuscript will be sent additionally with observations and minor corrections that do not involve substantial modifications of the content.
(c) Approved with changes, publish only if the changes were made. The author will receive a letter in which the observations highlighted by the evaluators or reviewers are reflected. Additionally, the manuscript will be sent with observations and significant corrections that require substantial changes to the writing. In this case, the author must forward the reissued document to the publisher with the corresponding change location table.
(d) Not published. The author receives the decision that his article was not publishable, together with the evaluation of the experts.

The variants that result from the evaluation by pairs will be solved in the following way:

Decision 1	Decision 2	Decision 3	Decision
Approved, published	Approved, published		Publish
Approved with suggestions, publish	Approved with suggestions, publish		Approved with suggestions, publish
Approved, published	Approved with suggestions, publish		Approved with suggestions, publish
Approved, published	Not published	Approved, published	Publish
Approved, published	Not published	Approved with suggestions, publish	Approved with suggestions, publish
Approved with suggestions, publish	Not published	Approved with suggestions, publish	Not published
Approved with changes, publish only if the changes were made	Not published		Not published

 Plagiarism Police

Gaceta tecnica in the search for quality terms, maintains an anti-plagiarism policy that all works are published, it is about using the tools for the protection of access rights on the Web, which can validate and supervise the originality of the manuscript controlling plagiarism.
The verification process becomes a corporal in the first instance by the director, in the second instance by the expert member in the content area of the manuscript, and finally in the respective recommendations to the reviewers. It will be checked that the submitted article is not plagiarism, using at least two of the following free programs: 

DupliCheker
https://www.duplichecker.com/es

SmallSEOTools
https://smallseotools.com/es/plagiarism-checker/

Plagiarims detector
https://plagiarismdetector.net/es

Rearch Engine Reports
https://searchenginereports.net/es/detector-de-plagio

Rejection Rate

Gaceta Tecnica has a rejection rate for 2021of 31% of the documents submitted by the authors to be subjected to a review.

Evaluators

Evaluators  2021

Msc. Nelson López                                        Universidad Politécnica Salesiana. Ecuador

Dr (c) Rodrigo Herrera Valencia                 Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. Chile

Dra. Lila Franco                                             Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado. Venezuela

Msc. Cristobal Mendoza                              Universidad Central de Venezuela. Venezuela

Msc. Gino Pannillo                                        Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado. Venezuela

Dr. Juan Carlos Vielma                                 Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. Chile

Ing. Luis Jose Prieto Escalona                     Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado. Venezuela

Dra. Claudia Marcela Gonzalez                  Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. Chile

Ing. Diego Aguero                                        Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado. Venezuela

Msc. Milagros Socorro Escalona                 Universidad Central de Venezuela. Venezuela

Dra. Luisa Casadei Carniel                           Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado. Venezuela

Dra. Claudia Patricia Retamoso Llamas    Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana. Colombia

Ing. María Alice Olavarrieta                         Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado. Venezuela

Ing. Jean Carlos Rincón                                 Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado. Venezuela