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 That are unpublished originality, relevance of research to the field of knowledge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 That are unpublished originality, timeliness and timeliness of information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. The author(s) submit their manuscript with Form 1: Publication Request to gacetadic@ucla.edu.ve with  copy to gacetadic@gmail.com.
2. The Editor-in-Chief responds with acknowledgment of receipt.
3. The manuscript is reviewed by the editorial committee to verify: a) compliance with the journal's editorial policy, and b) compliance with the established standards and other requirements, c) validation with anti-plagiarism software.
4. If it complies with these standards, it is sent to national and international reviewers external and internal to the institution, who are specialists in the areas relevant to the article's content, who issue a verdict on whether or not the work is to be published.
5. If the manuscript does not comply with the standards and requirements, the author(s) will be notified in writing via email with the respective observations justifying the rejection.
6. If the work meets the requirements but has significant observations, these are sent to the author(s) so they can make the suggested changes via email. A document called "Review Report" will be attached to the submission, specifying the details observed for improvement by both the reviewers and the editorial committee.
7. Upon returning the edited manuscript to the author(s), it is sent back to the referees for review of the changes made based on their observations.
8. Submitted papers are reviewed in a double-blind manner and are sent to two referees along with an evaluation form (Reviewer Format).
9. If one of the reviewers does not agree with the publication of the article, the document will be sent to a third reviewer to determine whether or not to publish it.
10. The review process is estimated to take an average of three (3) months.
11. If the author(s) are not satisfied with the review process, they must draft a document with their respective observations, which will be sent to the reviewers for final review. This will complete the evaluation process. 12. Upon verifying that the review board has met the observations, the Editor will send a letter of approval along with Form 2: Assignment of Rights, which must be duly completed and returned by the author(s). Once Form 2 has been duly completed by the author(s), the respective publication will proceed.

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