Articles selection process en deep

The peer review process includes the following stages:

  • Pre-review:
    Authors begin by submitting the manuscript through the Ship Science and Technology (Cartagena) OJS platform. At this stage, the Editor, in collaboration with the Editorial Committee, conducts an initial evaluation of the manuscript, considering:
    1. Content quality, disciplinary relevance, scientific merit, topic interest, scientific methodology, and up-to-date literature or other relevant legal materials.
    2. Alignment with the editorial scope.
    3. Compliance with submission requirements.
    4. Initial plagiarism screening. If the manuscript fails to meet criteria 2 or 3, authors are informed and allowed to make corrections. In cases of plagiarism detection, depending on severity, the Editorial Committee will notify the authors of rejection or allow the possibility of correction. If all criteria are met, the manuscript proceeds to peer review.
  • Peer Review:
    The Editor-in-Chief, with the support of the Editorial Committee, invites external reviewers based on the following criteria:
    1. The reviewer has academic training, research experience, and publications in the relevant field of knowledge.
    2. There is no conflict of interest that could affect the evaluation process.

Reviewers assess the manuscript using an online form or Word template and are encouraged to provide qualitative comments or an anonymized version of the manuscript with notes.

Review outcomes include:

    1. Rejected: the manuscript does not meet relevance, originality, or quality standards.
    2. Accepted with major revisions: the article may be accepted after a second round of peer review.
    3. Accepted with minor revisions: the Editorial Committee requests changes from the authors; if the corrections are verified, the article is accepted.
    4. Accepted: the article is accepted as is.

In cases deemed necessary by the Committee, a third reviewer is consulted, and their evaluation informs the final decision.

Final publication approval depends on the Editorial Committee and requires adherence to the established style and plagiarism check results.

Authors whose articles are accepted with revisions and/or accepted for publication must submit the required content, format, and style corrections within 05 business days of the request.

Step 1. Preliminary Review

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief
Outcome: Email sent by the Editor to the author with the decision to accept the article for peer review, request modifications, or reject it.

During this stage, the following aspects are reviewed:

  1. That the article falls within the thematic and methodological scope of the journal.
  2. That the authorship, affiliation, and metadata information is complete and reliable.
  3. That the document complies with the requirements established in the Author Guidelines (Download here).
  4. That the bibliography section is sufficient, up-to-date, and includes recognized sources with their respective DOI links.
  5. That the article has not been previously published in any language.
  6. That it adheres to the best ethical practices in scientific publishing as described by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and ELSEVIER: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.
  7. That there is no evidence of plagiarism in the manuscript.
  8. That the manuscript meets minimum standards of writing, spelling, and punctuation.
  9. That it includes the required documents: Statement of Originality (Download here) and Author Contribution Form (Download here).

Any manuscript with evidence of plagiarism, false information, or ethical issues will be immediately rejected.


Articles that fail to meet any of the other criteria may submit a revised version within a specified period. If the required documents are not provided, the article cannot proceed to review.

Due to the diversity of topics in naval science and engineering, the Editor-in-Chief may be supported by the Editorial Coordinator and the Scientific Committee for this initial review.

Online tracking: Once accepted for peer review, the article status will change from “Pending assignment” to “Under review.” The author may follow the process in the “Review” tab.
Each article receives a unique code. Always include this code in the subject line of your emails or inquiries.

Step 2. Peer Review

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief, Emeritus Editor

The peer review process takes between 2 and 4 weeks, depending on the availability of the selected reviewers.

Peer review in Ship Science and Technology (Cartagena) is defined as an evaluation carried out by peers who provide expert advice on the manuscript’s content (and are not part of the journal’s editorial team). This is a double-blind review, meaning neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities. A minimum of two reviewers will be assigned. This process ensures confidentiality and objectivity in the evaluation.

Reviewer selection criteria:

  1. At least a Master’s degree in the article’s field.
  2. Recent scientific publications (within the last 2 years) on the subject.
  3. Not affiliated with the authors' institution.
  4. No conflict of interest with the journal or its members.

Selected reviewers will receive an invitation to participate in the review process from the Editor-in-Chief or the Emeritus Editor. Reviewers may accept or decline the invitation. If accepted, reviewers will have access to the full anonymous article and an online form to support the review process. This process is carried out on the journal’s OJS (Open Journal System) platform or via institutional email.

In addition to the article’s topic and field of knowledge, reviewers will assess:

  • Title writing
  • Abstract content and structure
  • Selected keywords
  • Introduction content and structure
  • Presented methodology
  • Argumentation level
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusions
  • Overall impact and contribution to knowledge

The reviewer will provide general comments and suggestions for improvement and issue a recommendation with one of the following verdicts:

  • Publishable without changes: The revised version meets all requirements and can be published as is.
  • Publishable with minor changes: The article requires small modifications that are easily corrected.
  • Publishable with major changes: The article requires substantial changes. The revised version must be re-evaluated by the reviewers or editorial board.
  • Not publishable (Rejected): The article is not suitable for publication and would not contribute to the field of knowledge.

If there is disagreement among reviewer recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief (with possible assistance from the Editorial Committee) will have the final say.

The Editor-in-Chief will issue a certificate to the reviewers for that journal issue, which will be sent via email within the following month.

Any suggestions reviewers wish to share with the Editorial Committee regarding review parameters, indicators, ethics, and recommendations are welcome.

Contact emails:

  • Journal Editor: sst.journal@cotecmar.com
  • Editorial Coordinators:
    • MSc. Henry Murcia – hmurcia@cotecmar.com
    • MSc. Adriana Salgado – asalgado@cotecmar.com
    • MSc. Karine López – klopez@cotecmar.com

Reviewers must follow the COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines. They are responsible for contributing to the publication decision, timeliness, confidentiality, ensuring objectivity, recognizing sources, and declaring conflicts of interest.

IEEE Standards and References: Articles must strictly follow international citation and reference standards as outlined in the latest IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) guidelines.

Step 3. Editorial Decision

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief, Emeritus Editor

Once at least two reviewer recommendations have been received, the Editor-in-Chief has 2 weeks to communicate the decision to the author.

The Editor-in-Chief may accept (Publishable), reject (Not publishable), or request additional revisions from the authors (Publishable with minor or major changes). If the Editor’s decision goes against peer reviewer recommendations, this decision must be justified.

The decision to publish may be delegated to the Emeritus Editor (if applicable). If an editor has a conflict of interest, they will be excluded from the decision.

The author will receive an email from the Editor with the decision, which includes a summary of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, and a deadline for completing the revision process.

Online tracking: The editor’s decision will be reflected in the change of article status on the submission platform. If the decision is “Not publishable,” the article will be immediately removed from the journal’s review process, and the author will find the details in the “Archives” section.

Step 4. Author Revisions
Responsible parties: The authors.
Deadlines: Once the editor’s decision has been issued, the author will have the following deadlines to review the peer reviewers’ comments, submit the required changes, and provide the necessary documentation from each author:

  • Maximum of 1 week when the decision is Publishable with Minor Changes.
  • Maximum of 2 weeks when the decision is Publishable with Major Changes.

Publishable:
A Publishable decision will be issued when:

  1. The peer reviewers’ comments were positive, and the article was accepted for publication without additional reviewer feedback.
  2. The article required minor changes, which were made, and the article successfully passed a second round of review.
  3. The article required major changes, which were made, and the article successfully passed a second round of review.
  4. Once the final version of the article has been received, a final plagiarism check will be conducted, and the documentation will be reviewed to ensure completeness.

Online Tracking: Once the decision of “Publishable” is issued, the article status on the journal platform will change to “Editing”. The author will be able to track the progress under the “Editing” tab.

Publishable with Minor Changes:
In this case, the article only requires minor edits that can be easily addressed. Authors must respond to each of the peer reviewers’ suggestions within the established deadline. If the author decides not to follow any of the recommendations, a written justification must be provided, and the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to make the final decision on such matters.
Once the changes are received, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to issue a Publishable decision or request further clarifications or edits if necessary.

Publishable with Major Changes:
In this case, the article requires substantial changes, after which it must be reevaluated. Authors must address each of the peer reviewers’ suggestions within the established deadline. If the author decides not to follow any of these recommendations, a written justification must be provided, and the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to make the final decision on such matters.
Once the changes are received, the article will be submitted for publication review.
Once the comments are received, the Editor-in-Chief may issue a “Publishable” decision if all necessary corrections have been made, or “Not Publishable” if the article does not meet the reviewers’ criteria.

Step 5. Copyediting, Production, and Publication
Responsible parties: Authors, Editorial Coordinator, Assigned Layout Designer.
Deadlines:

  1. 10 business days for layout and copyediting (Layout Designer).
  2. 5 business days to resolve any questions that may arise during the copyediting process (Authors).
  3. 3 business days to make changes (if needed) (Layout Designer).
  4. 3 business days to publish the final online version (Editorial Coordinator).

Accepted articles will be sent to the assigned layout designer, who will begin the process of copyediting and layout. The layout designer, through the Editorial Coordinator, may contact the authors with questions related to style, context, or formatting of figures or tables (use of technical terms, coherence improvements, formula and symbol structure, missing sources or citations, etc.).
The author will have 5 days to respond and address all requests made by the layout designer.
The final version will include the DOI identifier and assigned page numbers (Editorial Coordinator).
The Editorial Team will inform the author of any technical or administrative changes made within the defined timeframes.

Step 6. Corrections and Retractions


Responsible: Editorial Team, Editorial Board, Authors, Readers, and Relevant Institutional Bodies.
Deadlines: In case of a report, 1 week to initiate the protocol.
Documentation: Meeting minutes, institutional protocols, and COPE Ethical Guidelines: the Committee on Publication Ethics, the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and the ELSEVIER Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.

 

Ship Science and Technology (Cartagena) is an open-access publication, meaning anyone can view and verify the content without restrictions and free of charge. If you, as a reader, have any questions regarding an article, you may send your concerns, comments, or suggestions via email to sst.journal@cotecmar.com. You may also contact the Editorial Coordinator at asalgado@cotecmar.com.


If demonstrable errors or ethical issues are found, please contact us to initiate the corresponding investigation and take immediate action. If the error or ethical concern is confirmed, the appropriate correction or retraction process will be initiated.


Corrections to significant errors discovered after online publication will be issued separately via a retraction document published at the end of each journal issue.


Minor errors that do not affect the study’s understanding will be corrected in the online versions within 20 business days of publication.

Retractions are issued when authors, readers, or editors discover significant errors in a published article. Such errors may be unintentional or the result of scientific misconduct.


Editors will examine the document in question and contact the authors and relevant bodies of the Editorial Board before making a final decision on the retraction. Institutional protocols will be followed, as well as COPE recommendations, the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and ELSEVIER’s Publishing Ethics Resource Kit, for identifying potential misconduct or negligence.


By accepting the Editor’s invitation to review an article, the reviewer must declare that there is no conflict of interest and agree to comply with the journal’s ethical, confidentiality, and anti-plagiarism standards, which are published on its website.

 

Step 7. Publication Ethics and Social Oversight

The Editorial Team will take all reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of articles where misconduct has occurred, such as plagiarism, incorrect citation, or data falsification. If misconduct is found, the article will be immediately rejected. If misconduct is discovered after publication, a retraction or correction will follow.


Readers are encouraged to report any suspected plagiarism to the editor’s email address. Once the possible misconduct is verified, the manuscript will be suspended from the editorial process. The author will then be informed. The deadline for submitting any observation is 10 business days. If no response is received or after receiving the author’s explanation, the editor will decide the outcome. The editor’s decision may be appealed to the Journal’s Editorial Board.