All
manuscripts are received by the editor (edbiotec@ucv.cl)
and are considered as a confidential document. Receipt of each article is
acknowledged by e-mail to the contacting author within three working days. The
manuscript is read and examined for conformity to the Instructions for Authors
by the editor. Failure to meet the criteria outlined may result in return of
the manuscript for correction before evaluation.
The editor or
members of the editorial board are not to be involved in their own manuscript
evaluation or in the evaluation of manuscripts emanating from their own
department. Under no circumstances the editor should contact the authors to
discuss matters related with the manuscript. In the same way, the editor and
the referees must never refer, in conversation or in print, to the work that
the manuscript describes before it has been published. Neither should the
information it contains be used for advancement of the own work.
All
manuscripts, including those of the editor or members of the Editorial
Board, will be subjected to the same review process. All of them
will be handled anonymously and submitted to peer review omitting authors names
and affiliations.
Editorial
process scheme
The editor
selects two or three referees who are invited, in confidence, to evaluate the
manuscript according to the following aspects:
• Originality
of the work.
|
• Relevance
to scientific knowledge in Biotechnology.
|
• Background: Theoretical background adequate. Hypothesis, objectives and clear contribution to Biotechnology. Updated and quality references: for original articles (research, short communications, technical notes, biotechnology issues for developing countries), at least 75% of the references must be at the same time from ISI Science Citation Index (http://www.thomsonscientific.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jloptions.cgi?PC=D) and from the last decade. Citations of thesis, personal communications, and unpublished data are not allowed.
|
•
Methodology: Materials and methods appropriate and adequately described. Sound
experimental design.
|
• Results:
Data concise and sufficient. Statistical analysis when appropriate. Efficiency
measurements. Figures clear and correct, only essential data should be included
in figures. Elimination of figures, graphs and tables which add little or could
be replaced by a few sentences or a statement of numerical values is
recommended.
|
• Discussion:
In-depth discussion, correct interpretation.
|
• Formal
Aspects: Correct language, references properly cited. High quality figures.
Adherence to usual and consistent nomenclature. Title and summary sufficiently
informative. |
All the above
items will be evaluated as outstanding, good, fair, mediocre or poor by an
assessment form given to evaluators.
The article
could be: accepted with no further revision; accepted after minor revision (no
further review required); accepted only after major revisions; inappropriate
for the journal; rejected.
If the paper
is accepted after major revisions, it will be submitted again for peer review to
the same evaluators.
| FINAL DIGITAL
TEST (GALLEY PROOF) |
The authors
are requested to do the galley proof before the article is available for
public. They must check the HTML. Upon acceptance of this version, the PDF will
be generated and no further changes will be accepted.
Once all
formats (HTML and PDF) are ready, the article is announced and becomes
available for all audiences.
|
