Peer Review Policies

The Revista Nutrición Continua (RNC) ensures the scientific excellence of its content through a rigorous, transparent, and agile arbitration system. All submitted manuscripts undergo a review process designed to verify originality, ethical integrity, and technical quality prior to publication.

I. Preliminary Evaluation and Plagiarism Detection (Desk Review)

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Editorial Board conducts a technical screening phase within a maximum period of 5 business days. During this stage, the following critical actions are performed:

• Similarity and Plagiarism Detection: RNC utilizes specialized software (iThenticate by Turnitin, Grammarly, Similarity Check) to analyze the originality of the text. Any manuscript exceeding the permitted similarity thresholds or showing signs of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or redundant publication will be immediately rejected, with the author notified of the decision and its grounds.

• Scope and Style Verification: The editorial team ensures the article aligns with the journal's thematic axes and strictly adheres to the formatting and citation guidelines outlined in the Author Guidelines.

• Ethical Rigor: The declaration of no conflicts of interest is verified. For clinical research, the presence of Ethics Committee approval and documented informed consent is mandatory.

Evaluation Outcome: If the result is positive, the manuscript formally proceeds to the assignment of external reviewers under the double-blind arbitration system. If the manuscript fails to meet technical or ethical standards, it will result in a Direct Rejection.

II. Double-Blind Peer Review System

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary evaluation are assigned to the External Arbitration Commission through a double-blind peer review system. This mechanism ensures that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain strictly anonymous throughout the process, guaranteeing a report free from personal, institutional, or geographic bias. Reviewers are international experts selected for their high technical competence in the manuscript's specific field of study.

III. Evaluation Criteria and Decision

Reviewers have 5 business days to accept the invitation and 15 business days to submit their technical report. They evaluate originality, methodological soundness, and the relevance of the findings to issue one of the following decisions:

1. Accepted: The article is accepted in its current form or with minor editorial adjustments.

2. Accepted with Modifications: Final acceptance is conditional upon the author incorporating the suggested technical observations within a period of 7 to 10 business days.

3. Re-evaluable (Resubmit for Review): The work requires profound structural changes. Resubmission does not guarantee publication, and the process will begin from scratch.

4. Rejected: The manuscript presents insurmountable methodological or ethical deficiencies. This decision is final and not subject to appeal.

IV. Editorial Decision and Production

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision based on the peer reports. Once an article receives an "Accepted" status, it moves to the production team for copyediting and layout. In the final stage, a galley proof (PDF) will be sent to the author, who will have a maximum of 72 hours to perform a final verification before DOI assignment and definitive publication.