Peer Review Process

Brief description of the article selection process

Transactions on Energy Systems and Engineering Applications uses a single-blind method to evaluate manuscripts. To help ensure a high academic standard of its contents, the journal relies on anonymous peer reviews as an essential component of the evaluation process of manuscripts.

The review process begins when authors submit their research to the Editor, upon compliance with the Code of Editorial Ethics and the Guideline to Authors.  

The Editor acknowledges receipt to the authors and indicates the approximate duration of the peer review process, which should not exceed four months. However, depending on the circumstances of the review, this time may vary. The process is as follows:

  1. In the first stage of the process, the Editor undertakes a preliminary review of submitted manuscripts to verify that it meets the requirements set by the Guidelines to Authors. At this stage, known as desk review, considerations of quality and originality are verified, including the application of tools to detect possible forms of plagiarism. As a result of this review, the Editor can either reject the manuscript or send it to the next stage of the review process.

  2. If the Editor forwards the manuscript after the desk review, he sends it to two anonymous peers for evaluation. The designated referees should have expertise in the subject of the manuscript, should not be ethically compromised to undertake the evaluation, and should not be affiliated with Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar nor with the organizations to which the authors belong. Referees are bound to give their concepts and recommendations objectively and fairly based on the standards established by the journal. These standards include the pertinence of the paper in its field, the rigor of exposition, and its contribution. Reviewers will also strive to identify errors and possible instances of plagiarism, suggest improvements, evaluate the originality of the text and verify its coherence, in particular the correspondence between its argumentation and its conclusions.

  3. Based on the pertinence of the paper in its field, the rigor of exposition, and its contribution, the referees may accept it without modifications, accept it with modifications, or reject it outright. If one or both reviewers request modifications to the manuscript as a condition for the acceptance of the text for publication, the Editors will notify the authors and set a deadline to address the changes.

  4. Upon receiving a revised manuscript, the Editor checks that revisions were made accordingly. If any revisions are found to be neglected, the Editor may rescind of the manuscript or, considering the circumstances on an individual basis, ask authors to add or edit any necessary modifications.

In-depth article selection process

The following outline summarizes the peer review process:

  • Pre-review: Authors initiate the process by submitting the article through the Transactions on Energy Systems and Engineering Applications OJS platform. At this stage, the Editor, in collaboration with the Editorial Committee, performs an initial review of the manuscript considering:

1) content quality, disciplinary relevance, scientific character, interest of the subject, whether scientific methodology was involved or not, updated use of primary and secondary literature and bibliography.

2) relevance with the editorial line.

3) compliance with the submission requirements.

4) initial anti-plagiarism review. In the case of non-compliance with the criteria 2 and 3, the authors are informed and allowed to make corrections. In the case of plagiarism detection and depending on the complexity, the Editorial Committee will inform the authors of the rejection or the possibility of correction. If all the criteria are met, the manuscript advances to peer review.

  • Peer Review: The Editor, with the collaboration of the Editorial Committee, requests the collaboration of peer reviewers considering the following criteria:

1) the peer reviewer has academic and research training and publications in the area of knowledge.

2) no conflict of interest that may affect the evaluation process.

Reviewers evaluate using the online form or word format and are encouraged to include qualitative comments or a copy of the manuscript with anonymized comments.

The evaluation options are:

1) rejected: the manuscript does not meet the criteria of relevance, originality, and quality.

2) accepted with major corrections: the article may be accepted after a second peer review process.

3) accepted with minor corrections: the Editorial Committee requests changes to the authors if their incorporation is verified the article is accepted.

4) accepted: the article may be published as is.

In those cases where the Committee deems it necessary, a third evaluator is used, whose criteria will inform the final decision.

The final decision for publication depends on the Editorial Committee and requires compliance with the established style and anti-plagiarism review.

Authors whose articles have been approved with modifications and/or approved for publication undertake to make corrections of content, form, and style within 5 working days from the time of the request.

Step 1. Pre-Check

Responsible: Editor

Outcome: E-mail sent by the editor to the author with the decision to accept the article to initiate the peer review process, a request to change the article, or the decision to turn down the article.

The following items are reviewed in the pre-check stage:

  1. Whether the article is within the scope of the journal’s subject matter and methodology.
  2. Whether the information on authorship, affiliation, and metadata is complete and reliable.
  3. Whether the document fulfills the journal’s criteria (see Submitting Manuscrips
  4. Whether the bibliography section is of adequate size, is up to date, and is comprised of recognized sources with their respective DOI links.
  5. Whether the article has not been published previously in any language.
  6. Whether the article fulfills the ethical and good scientific journal publishing practices described by COPE: the Committee on Publication Ethics, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and the ELSEVIER: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.
  7. Whether there is any evidence of plagiarism in the manuscript.
  8. Whether the manuscript meets minimum standards of style, spelling, and punctuation.
  9. Whether the article includes the required attachments, including the Letter of Submissión.

Any manuscript that displays evidence of plagiarism, false information about the authors, or any other ethical issue will be immediately turned down.

Articles that fail to meet any of the criteria (other than those related to plagiarism or ethical issues) shall be given the opportunity to submit an amended version within a certain time limit. Manuscripts that do not include the required documentation (Authors’ Information Form and Letter of Originality) will not be allowed to move on to the review process until they fulfill such requirements.

Due to the diversity of legal and political science topics, the Editor may seek the assistance of the Publishing Coordinator and the Scientific Committee for the initial review.

Following up online: Once an article is accepted to move on to the peer review process, the status of the article in the journal’s platform will change from “Pending Assignment” to “Under Review”. From that point on, the author will be able to view the status of the process in the “Review” tab.

The submissions platform assigns a unique identifier to each article. When you make any inquiries or send an e-mail, make sure to include the assigned code in the subject line.


Step 2: Peer Review

Persons responsible: Editor.

The peer review process takes approximately between 4 and 6 weeks, depending on the availability of the selected reviewers.

The article review at Transactions on Energy Systems and Engineering Applications is defined as a review by peers who provide expert advice on the manuscript’s contents (and do not belong to the journal’s publishing team). It is a single-blind review, which implies that neither the authors nor the reviewers will know each other’s identity. A minimum of two reviewers will be assigned. This promotes the confidentiality of the article and the objectivity of the review process.

The following are the peer reviewer selection requirements or criteria:

  1. Minimum education of master’s degree in the field of knowledge of the article.
  2. Scientific publications on the subject area of the reviewed article in the latest 2 years.
  3. Not being affiliated with the same institution as the article’s authors.
  4. Not having conflicts of interest with the journal or any of its members: authors, editors, committee members or administrative staff.

The selected peer reviewers will receive an invitation to participate in the review process from the   Editor or the Assistant Editor. The reviewer may either accept or decline the invitation. If it is accepted, the reviewer will have access to the full text of the anonymous article and to an online form to support the review process. The process will be carried out in the journal’s OJS (Open Journal System) platform or through the institution’s e-mail.

In this process, in addition to the subject matter and field of knowledge of the article, aspects are assessed regarding the writing of the title; the contents and structure of the abstract; the selected keywords; the contents and structure of the introduction; the methodology presented; the level of argumentation; the results found; the discussion; the conclusions and the article’s overall impact and contribution to knowledge.

The peer reviewer will present his general comments and recommendations to improve the text and will issue his recommendation with one of the following verdicts:

Accepted without changes: The reviewed version of the article fulfills all requirements and can be published as it is.

Accepted with minor changes: The article requires minor changes that can be easily corrected.

Accepted with major changes: The article requires substantial changes, and the new version of the article with the changes made by the author must be resubmitted for reassessment by the peer reviewers or the members of the publishing committee.

Not accepted (Rejected): The article is not suitable for publication. Its publication would not contribute to the field of knowledge.

In the event of any differences between the recommendations of the peer reviewers, the Editor (with possible assistance from the Publishing Committee) will have the final word on the article.

The Editor will issue a certificate to the peer reviewers of the issue, which will be sent to the peer reviewer by e-mail within the next month.

Any suggestions that the peer reviewers wish to share with the Editor will be well received regarding review parameters, review indicators, ethics, and reviewer recommendations to the journal's Editor Dr. Andrés Marrugo, at

The reviewers must follow the guidelines described by COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics. Reviewers shall be deemed to be responsible for: contributing to the decision to publish, timeliness, confidentiality, ensuring objectivity standards, recognition of the source, and a statement on conflicts of interest.

Step 3. Editor Decision

Persons responsible: Editor.

Once recommendations have been received from at least 2 reviewers, the   Editor will have 2 weeks to communicate the decision to the author.

The Editor may either Accept (Publishable), Reject (Not publishable), or request additional revisions by the authors (publishable with minor or major changes). In the event the Editor’s decision runs against the recommendations of the peer reviewers, such a decision must be justified.

The decision to publish may be delegated to the guest editors (if applicable). If an editor has a conflict of interest, he/she will be excluded from the decision.

The author will receive an e-mail with the Editor’s decision, which will include a summary of the comments and suggestions made by the peer reviewers and will set a deadline for the author to complete the revision process.

Following up online: The editor’s decision will be reflected in a change in the article’s status in the submissions 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 File section.

Step 4. Revision by Authors

Responsible: the Authors.

Time limits: Once the editor’s decision has been issued, the author will have the above time limits to review the peer reviewers’ comments, submit the changes and submit the required 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.


A decision of publishable will be issued when:

  1. The peer reviewers’ comments were positive, and the article was accepted for publication with no further comments from the reviewers.
  2. The article required minor changes, which were made, and the article successfully passed the second round of reviews.
  3. The article required major changes, which were made, and the article successfully passed the second round of reviews.

Once the final version of the article is received, a final plagiarism check is made, and the documentation is reviewed to ensure it is complete.

Following up online: Once the “Publishable” decision is issued, the article’s status in the journal’s platform will change to “Editing”. The author can view the progress of the process under the “Editing” tab.

Publishable with Minor Changes:

In this case, the article requires only minor changes that can be easily corrected. The authors must address each of the peer reviewers’ suggestions within the established time limit. In the event the author decides not to abide by any of these recommendations, he/she must provide written justification, and the Editor reserves the right to make the final decision on such considerations.

Once the changes are received, the Editor may decide to issue a decision of Publishable or may require further clarification or changes, if necessary.

Publishable with Major Changes:

In this case, the article requires substantial changes, following which it must be reassessed. The authors must address each of the peer reviewers’ suggestions within the established time limit. In the event the author decides not to abide by any of these recommendations, he must provide written justification, and the Editor reserves the right to make the final decision on such considerations.

Once the changes are received, the article will be submitted for publishing review.

Once the comments are received, the Editor may issue a decision of “Publishable” if all appropriate corrections were made, or “Not publishable” in the event the article does not fulfill the reviewers’ criteria.


Step 5. Correction, Production, and Publication

Persons responsible: Authors, Publishing Coordinator, Assigned Layout Designer.

Time limits: 20 business days for layout and proofreading (Layout Designer).

3 business days to address any doubts that may arise in the proofreading process (Authors)

3 business days to make changes (if required) (Layout Designer).

3 business days to publish the final version online (Publishing Coordinator).

The accepted articles will be forwarded to the assigned layout designer, who will begin the proofreading and layout process. The layout designer, through the Publishing Coordinator, may make inquiries with the authors on any doubts related to style, context, or layout of figures or tables (the use of technical terms, enhancements in consistency, formula structure, and symbols, fonts, or missing citations, etc.)

The author will have a 5-day time limit to reply to and address all the requests made by the layout designer.

The final draft version will include the DOI identifier and the assigned page numbers (Publishing Coordinator).

The publishing team will report to the author any changes made for technical or administrative reasons within the defined time limits.

Step 6. Correction and Retraction

Responsible: Publishing Team, Editorial Committee, Authors, Readers, and Relevant Institutional Instances.

Time limits: In the event of a report, 1 week to start the protocol.

Documentation: Meeting Minutes, Institutional Protocols and Ethical Guidelines of COPE: the Committee on Publication Ethics, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and the ELSEVIER: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.

Transactions on Energy Systems and Engineering Applications is an Open Access publication, which implies that anyone can view and verify the text without limitations and at no cost. If you as a reader have any questions about an article, you may submit your concerns, comments, and suggestions by e-mail to You can also send an e-mail to the Editor Dr. Andrés Marrugo, at

If you find any errors or demonstrable ethical issues, please contact us to initiate the appropriate investigation and take immediate action. If the error or ethical problem is confirmed, the appropriate correction or retraction process will be initiated.

Corrections of important errors after the article has been published online will be published separately by means of a retraction document at the end of each edition of the journal.

Minor errors that do not affect understanding of the study will be corrected in the on-line versions within 15 days from publication.

Retractions are published when the authors, readers or editors find important errors in a published article. Such errors may be unvoluntary or the result of scientific misconduct.

The publishers will study the document in question and will contact the authors and the appropriate bodies of Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez before making the final decision on the retraction. To this effect, institutional protocols will be followed, as well as the recommendations of COPE: the Committee on Publication Ethics, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and the ELSEVIER: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit, for the identification of the alleged misconduct or malpractice.

Upon accepting the Editor’s invitation to review the article, the reviewer must declare that he/she has no conflict of interest and will abide by the ethical, confidentiality, and plagiarism standards established by the journal, which are published on its website.

Step 7. Publications Ethics and social control

The Editorial Team will take all reasonable measures to identify and prevent the publication of articles where a bad practice has occurred such as plagiarism, wrongful citation, or falsification of data. If any bad practice is found, the article will be rejected outright. If the bad practice is discovered after the publication, a retraction or correction will take place.

Readers are invited to report any plagiarism to the editor´s email address. Once the possible existence of bad practice has been verified, the inclusion of the writing in the Journal’s editorial procedure is suspended. Then, the author will be informed. The term for submitting any observation is 10 business days. In the absence of a response or, after receiving the author’s explanations, the editor should decide the outcome. The editor’s decision is appealable before the Journal’s Editorial Committee.