Editorial process


Authors must submit their products through the OJS platform and will be informed on time of the dates for their submission.

In principle, the area of study, subject matter, format, and relevance of the article will be taken into account, notifying the authors of the following:

- Once the article has passed to the peer review stage, considering experts in the area of study of the article, this process will last ten calendar days regarding the evaluation form in the OJS platform. This evaluation will be in the double-blind mode for author(s) and evaluators, i.e., the evaluators will receive the article without the author's identity and any other data referring to them. The authors will receive the observations without the evaluators' data. If there is no coherence between the evaluations, a third evaluation will be considered, complying with the double-blind standard. The evaluators will perform their work under the criteria of confidentiality and impartiality.

The article is rejected for not being of interest to the Journal or for presenting a format not established by the Journal.

Once the article has been evaluated, the authors will be notified:

- The paper presents minor revisions that can be improved for its subsequent publication. Likewise, the author/s will have 15 calendar days to return the article with the suggested corrections and a letter stating the modifications made.

The editorial committee will evaluate whether the observations made have been complied with and, if it considers it pertinent, send it again to the peer reviewer. The publication decision will be subject to the agreement of the peer reviewer and the editorial committee, considering the observations made previously. In the case of disagreement with the peer reviewers' evaluations, the authors should send a letter of explanation justifying their position on the comments. The Journal reserves the right to edit texts without changing the meaning of the article.

In cases where the article is already accepted, the authors must sign a declaration of originality and authorization of the rights of publication and reproduction of the same and the inclusion in databases, web pages, or electronic pages, national or international (Review Annex 1: Forms of Declaration of Originality and Declaration of Conflict of Interest). All the content of the articles, including texts, tables, figures, and information in general, is included in the material to be published under the exclusive responsibility of the authors. Likewise, the article is the responsibility of its authors and does not necessarily reflect the thinking of the editorial committee.

The article cannot be published because the modifications are too extensive or unsuitable for the Journal.



The Athenea editorial board is a collegiate team of national and international professional experts with high professional and research prestige in their specific areas who guarantee the quality of the papers received for publication in compliance with the Journal's standards and under the double-blind peer review. In addition, this professional team has the mission of reviewing the formal and substantive aspects of the papers to meet international standards of quality, rigor, novelty, initiative, originality, writing, and other characteristics of a research paper.

The authors receive a peer review report, which includes the aspects that must be improved so that the work may or may not continue its publication process. This review process is confidential, objective, and precise in writing their comments on the documents processed for publication. The process is done through the OJS platform or by e-mail.

The reviewers and editors team is public and available at the link: https://athenea.autanabooks.com/index.php/revista/about/editorialTeam

1. Acceptance/rejection criteria for manuscript evaluation

The editors of Athenea Revista en Ciencias de la Ingeniería request, through an invitation, the collaboration of reviewers, considering their expertise in the subject according to their professional training. The participation of reviewers is fundamental to the publication process. Therefore the assessment for the selection of a reviewer is subject to the following:

     1. Professional competence and experience in the subject of the article.

     2. Availability of time and disposition.

     3. Conflict of interest: The reviewer may detect any relationship with the authors, with the university involved, or with the group of researchers, so the selected reviewer may refuse to review.

     4. Confidentiality: The review cannot be shared with third parties. Any concerns regarding the reviews should be discussed with the editor.

     5. The reviewer must notify the editor of the reasons for not reviewing the manuscript.

2. Reviewing

The reviewers have the function of attending to manuscripts objectively and providing the necessary information. To ensure the quality of the content and the format quality, they must comply with these standards. Therefore, they should evaluate the research, contribute constructively to its improvement, and meet the formatting requirements.

The reviewers will issue a report to the authors containing suggestions for improving the manuscript. This report includes all aspects of form and content so that the research can be published.

3. General criteria for the evaluation of the manuscript

The fundamental criteria that the reviewers will consider for the manuscript to be adequate will be the following:

The originality of the manuscript. The works to be published must be original, so the reviewers can rely on publication tools to validate the relevance of the papers. Manuscripts must be written in such a way as to guarantee the attractiveness and interest of the scientific community in such a way that they meet modern research expectations and adapt to current demands and topics of scientific relevance. The title must be written without excessive words and with precision on the subject. The summary must describe in a few words the work carried out, highlight the work carried out and the methods for its execution, and include an overview of the main conclusions reached. The introduction should synthesize the work carried out within the theme, the background of the topic, and its relevance to the research described.

Manuscript rigor. The manuscript must comply with academic and research rigors; therefore, the methodology must cover the research's methodological aspects, considering mathematical characteristics if applicable. Results should clearly and concisely describe the research elements concerning the stated objectives. References should comply with IEEE standards for the Journal. They should include each of the works cited without exception and without adding other works that are not cited. The use of reference managers is suggested.

Manuscript clarity. The manuscript should be written in a clear, scientific, and technical manner, complying with the grammatical rules of the Real Academia Española in the case of papers in Spanish. Aspects of syntax and grammar will also be reviewed in the case of manuscripts submitted in other languages, such as English or Portuguese. Authors must strictly respect the Journal's regulations for these aspects.

Manuscript relevance. The manuscript should have clear and well-written conclusions that assess the research's significance and enhance the study's prospects.

4. Ethical reasons

Reviewers should verify the manuscripts' ethical conduct and advise the editor of any doubts.

5. The manuscript evaluation process in OJS

- Access the OJS system Athenea journal platform with your username and password using the URL: https://athenea.autanabooks.com/index.php/revista/user/register.

6. Evaluation Report

The reviewers must comply with the formats for peer review and may consider three possibilities:

Accepted without modifications: corresponds to those papers that comply with the characteristics of form and content required in the Journal's regulations, which may be published in the issue where there is Availability.

Accepted with modifications: corresponds to those papers that comply with the characteristics of form and content required by the Journal's rules but require some improvements for their final publication.

Rejected: those papers that do not comply with the Journal's guidelines will be considered rejected. Therefore, any article submitted without the format and strict regulations of the Journal will not pass peer review and will be regarded as immediately REJECTED.

Comments should be clear, concise, objective, and supported so that the author and editors can understand the suggestions and the decision regarding the manuscript's acceptance or rejection. Therefore, reviewers are encouraged to maintain formal and friendly language in their comments.

7. The manuscript evaluation aspects for external reviewers

Reviewers should review the following elements for the evaluation of papers submitted to the Journal:
Format of the Journal, the documents must fully comply with the form established in the Journal and be available at the URL: http://athenea.autanabooks.com/index.php/revista/information/authors

1. Adequate subject matter for the Journal.

2. Abstract.

3. Introduction and state-of-the-art.

4. Methodology.

5. Results.

6. Arrangement and description of tables and figures.

7. Conclusions.

8. References within the IEEE standard.

9. Ethical considerations.

10. Conflict of interest.

8. Instance that will approve the article after its evaluation.

The editorial committee will consider the revisions made by the reviewers. Then, it will finalize the aspects observed to improve the content, thus guaranteeing the quality of the last.