Peer Review Process


A. After the article is submitted through the journal's OJS system-Submission Article the Editor of the journal determines whether the submitted article conforms to the formats, guidelines and priority areas of the journal Sel.Mat, using a FORMAT, if it does not, the editor may reject the manuscript, communicating his decision to the author, and suggesting that it be submitted to another journal.

B. Evaluation through a similarity evaluation software. Only articles within the lower 20% range will be accepted.

C. In the case of passing stages A and B, the manuscript is submitted to a peer review system, double blind (keeping anonymous the identity of the referee and the author(s), even after the publication of the article), at least two (02) external reviewers or evaluators, which within 31 days report their opinion (according to the "Opinion Criteria," ).


Editorial Decision: Reviewers submit their technical evaluation of the manuscript through the OJS system, suggesting the following actions:

  1. a) Accept submission: It is suggested to accept the article in its current state for publication.
  2. b) Publishable with modifications: It is suggested to accept the article after making the modifications indicated in the evaluation.
  3. c) Resubmit for review: It is suggested that the author makes significant changes that need to be reviewed again by the same reviewers.
  4. d) Resubmit for another publication: It is suggested that the author considers making substantial changes to the article.
  5. e) Not publishable: It is suggested not to publish the article.

Editors do not participate in decisions about manuscripts they have authored themselves. The participation of reviewers is anonymous and voluntary in all cases. Based on the reviewers' feedback, the Editor decides whether to publish the article, reject it, or provide suggestions to the author.

Reviewers may inform the Editor about substantial portions of the work already published or, if known, submitted for review to another publication, in order to avoid similarities with other published works.

If at least one reviewer suggests "Resubmit for review," the author is invited to make the changes within the timeframe set by the journal (always 15 business days). Failure to meet the deadline results in article rejection. In case of controversy, the Editor submits the manuscript to a third reviewer to make a decision.

Reviewer Selection:

The chosen reviewers should be specialists in the subject matter, have recognized academic prestige in the article's thematic area, possess research experience, and have articles published in indexed scientific journals. Additionally, they must not be members of SEL.MAT.

Reviewer Instructions:

• Confidentiality: All manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shown or discussed with others unless authorized by the publisher.

Objectivity: Reviews must be carried out objectively. Critics must express their opinions clearly with adequate supporting arguments. Personal criticism of the authors will not be accepted. 

Identify relevants published works:  The reviewrs must identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. They should also indicate whether the observations or arguments have been previously published. Any similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work must be reported to the editor.

• Review of methods: They must examine the adequacy and precision of the methods used in the study, as well as the interpretation of the results.

Structure and presentation of the manuscript: They must evaluate the structure of the manuscript, the clarity of expression, the integrity of the data and the presentation of information.

Conflict of interest statement: If reviewers have any potential conflicting interests with the research, authors, or institutions connected to the manuscript, they must notify the editor and opt out of the review process for that manuscript.

• Review time: Reviewers must complete their review in the time allotted by the editor. If they cannot meet this deadline, they must notify the editor and decline the invitation to review.

Constructive feedback: Although reviewers can recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript, the final decision rests with the editors. Reviewers should provide feedback that helps authors improve their work, with sufficient objectivity to allow authors to take action to improve points noted.

Ethical evaluation: Reviewers must consider and comment on possible ethical problems in the research. If misconduct is suspected, reviewers should inform the editor.

 . Fill out the evaluation letter and upload to the OJS <evaluation>


Article Withdrawal:

If the author or authors decide to withdraw the article at any stage of the article evaluation, they must request it by sending an email to, including all co-authors involved in the article in cc.