Peer Review & Evaluation Policy

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1. Object

This Policy establishes the general principles and procedures applicable to the

preliminary editorial review, peer evaluation, issuance of opinions and decision-making

decisions on the contents presented to Líder Agropecuario.

Article 2. Evaluation principles

The evaluation will be governed by the principles of:

• independence;
• impartiality;
• competition;
• confidentiality;
• transparency;
• integrity;
• respect;
• Proportionality
• absence of discrimination;
• human responsibility.

The evaluation should focus on the quality and characteristics of the content and not on the

nationality, institution, profession, economic position, Allied status or others

circumstances beyond the merit of the manuscript.

Article 3. Contents subject to evaluation

Scientific dissemination articles will ordinarily be submitted to editorial review.

preliminary and peer review.

Other special content, such as interviews, institutional communications,

audiovisual materials, editorials or other formats, may follow procedures

differentiated according to their nature.

PRELIMINARY EDITORIAL REVIEW

Article 4. Preliminary review

All manuscripts will undergo an initial editorial review before being sent to

reviewers.

The Editorial Management will mainly verify:

I. Correspondence with the scope of Líder Agropecuario.

II. Nature of scientific dissemination.

III. Basic compliance with requirements.

IV. Clarity and general structure.

V. Existence of identifiable sources.

VI. Originality and transparency.

VII. Basic aspects of authorship, ethics and integrity.

VIII. Minimum conditions to start the evaluation.

Article 5. Result of the preliminary review

As a result of this stage, the Editorial Management will be able to:

I. Authorize submission for peer review.

II. Request adjustments before the evaluation.

III. Request additional information or documentation.

IV. Determine that the content requires substantial adaptation.

V. Editorially reject the manuscript.

Article 6. Preliminary editorial rejection

A manuscript may be rejected without external review when, among other circumstances:

• is outside the reach of the magazine;
• does not correspond to scientific dissemination;
• presents substantial deficiencies that prevent its evaluation;
• lack verifiable support;
• incurs serious breaches of institutional policies;
• presents obvious problems of authorship, integrity or rights.

The magazine will try to briefly communicate the main reason for the editorial rejection.

peer review.

Article 7. Evaluation modality

The ordinary modality will be double-blind peer review, ensuring that people

Authors and reviewers do not know each other's identities during the evaluation.

When the nature of the content, the specialization of the topic or some circumstance

justified requires it, different modalities may be used, preserving in all

moment the independence and impartiality of the process.

Article 8. Number of reviewers

As a general rule, manuscripts will be evaluated by two reviewers.

Exceptionally, a single evaluation may be used when there is justification.

sufficient and the Editorial Management considers that it allows a responsible decision to be made.

When the opinions are substantially contradictory, a third party may be requested.

Evaluation.

Article 9. Profile of reviewers

The reviewers must have sufficient experience or knowledge

related to the topic evaluated.

They may come from areas:

• scientists;
• academics;
• technicians;
• professionals;
• productive;
• institutional.

In contents of greater scientific complexity, efforts will be made to ensure that at least one of the

reviewers have academic or scientific experience directly related to

with the topic.

Article 10. Selection and conflicts of interest

The selection of reviewers will be the responsibility of the Editorial Management.

The authors may suggest specialists or report possible conflicts of interest.

without these proposals being binding.

A person whose personal, professional,

institutional, academic, financial or other nature may affect or reasonably

appear to affect their impartiality.

Article 11. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for evaluation will be confidential.

Reviewers will not be able to:

• disseminate the manuscript;
• share it without authorization;
• use unpublished information for your own benefit or that of third parties;
• contact the authors directly;
• incorporating the manuscript into external artificial intelligence platforms does not

authorized.

The identity of the reviewers for each manuscript will remain

confidential, unless there is a different modality previously authorized.

Líder Agropecuario may publicly and generally recognize the collaboration of his

community of reviewers without necessarily revealing which manuscripts they evaluated.

Article 12. Responsibilities of reviewers

The reviewers must:

I. Evaluate only matters over which they have sufficient competence.

II. Report conflicts of interest.

III. Express your own and independent opinion.

IV. Reasonably justify your observations.

V. Maintain professional and respectful language.

VI. Differentiate relevant deficiencies from optional suggestions.

VII. Reasonably meet agreed deadlines.

VIII. Protect the confidentiality of the content.

The review should contribute to the improvement of the manuscript and not be used as

personal disqualification mechanism.

OPINION AND EDITORIAL DECISION

Article 13. Evaluation criteria

The review must consider, as appropriate:

• relevance of the topic;
• quality and reliability of sources;
• scientific or technical rigor;
• information accuracy;
• clarity;
• coherence;
• usefulness for target audiences;
• dissemination capacity;
• current events;
• originality of the informative contribution;
• adequate interpretation of data or evidence;
• quality of images, tables or relevant materials;
• ethical compliance;
• supported conclusions.

The evaluation must consider the nature of scientific dissemination of the article and not require

unnecessarily the structure of a conventional academic article.

Article 14. Results of the opinion

Reviewers may recommend:

I. Accept.

The manuscript can continue to the corresponding stage.

II. Accept with minor modifications.

It requires corrections that do not substantially alter its content.

III. Major modifications and new evaluation.

It requires significant changes before a decision can be made.

IV. Decline.

The manuscript has deficiencies that prevent it from being recommended for publication in the version

evaluated.

The recommendation of a reviewer does not in itself constitute an editorial decision

definitive.

Article 15. Contradictory opinions

When there are substantial differences between opinions, the Editorial Management may:

I. Request a third evaluation.

II. Consult the Scientific Editorial Council.

III. Request clarifications from reviewers.

IV. Analyze the observations directly and make an informed determination.

Divergence between reviewers will not automatically imply rejection.

Article 16. Final editorial decision

The final decision on the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts will correspond to the Director.

and Editor in Chief of Líder Agropecuario, considering the opinions received, the polemics

institutional and other relevant elements.

The recommendations of the reviewers and advisory bodies will have

technical nature and will not replace the responsibility of the final editorial decision.

Article 17. Corrections and new evaluation

When modifications are requested, the authors must present the version

corrected within the communicated deadline.

The magazine may request an explanation of the changes made.

Manuscripts subject to major modifications may be resubmitted to the

same reviewers, to other specialists or will be evaluated directly by the

Editorial Direction when sufficient.

PROCESS GUARANTEES

Article 18. Editorial independence

No financial contribution, support or institutional collaboration, status as an Ally of

Open Science, contracting of services, institutional relationship or commercial link may:

• will guarantee favorable evaluation;
• determine the selection of reviewers;
• unduly speeding up a manuscript;
• ensure its acceptance;
• modify a ruling;
• intervene in the editorial decision.

Reception and evaluation of manuscripts will be free in accordance with the Policy for Authors.

Article 19. Evaluation of manuscripts linked to the journal

The members of the Editorial Management, Scientific Editorial Council, Council

Institutional Advisory, collaborators, Allies or other people linked to

Líder Agropecuario may submit manuscripts.

In these cases, sufficient measures of abstention, independence and

management of conflicts of interest.

The person directly related to the manuscript will not be able to intervene in its evaluation.

nor in the corresponding decision.

Article 20. Artificial intelligence and automated tools

Artificial intelligence and automated tools may be used only as

auxiliary support instruments, in accordance with institutional policies.

They will not be able to:

• replace the intellectual review of a specialist;
• act as a review person;
• issue an editorial opinion themselves;
• will make acceptance or rejection decisions.

The results of automated similarity detectors, artificial intelligence or other

tools will be auxiliary in nature and will not constitute conclusive evidence on their own.

alone.

Article 21. Reconsideration

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when

consider that there are objective errors, relevant omissions or irregularities in the

process.

The request must be justified and cannot be based solely on disagreement with

the scientific or technical opinion of the reviewers.

The reconsideration will be analyzed by the Editorial Management and, when appropriate,

Additional opinion may be requested.

The existence of a reconsideration does not imply an obligation to modify the initial decision.

Article 22. Deadlines

Líder Agropecuario will try to develop the evaluation processes within time

reasonable and promptly communicate significant delays.

The specific deadlines for accepting revisions, issuing opinions, corrections and

Other actions may be established in the Editorial Procedures Manual, OJS or

INSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS

The quality and responsibility of the evaluation will prevail over the artificial compliance of

rigid deadlines.

FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 23. Relationship with other instruments

This Policy will be interpreted in addition to:

I. Editorial Policy.

II. Policy for Authors.

III. Ethics, Integrity and Use of AI Policy.

IV. Open Access and Intellectual Property Policy.

V. Institutional Sustainability and Editorial Independence Policy.

VI. Comprehensive Privacy Notice.

VII. General Terms and Conditions of Use of the Website.

VIII. Applicable editorial manuals and procedures.

When another policy regulates a subject with greater specialty, said matter will be taken into account.

specific provision.

Article 24. Operational development

Detailed procedures related to:

• selection of reviewers;
• invitations;
• acceptance or rejection of invitations;
• opinion formats;
• communications;
• deadlines;
• records;
• conflict of interest controls;
• management through OJS;
• evaluation monitoring;
• record keeping;

They will be developed in the Manual of Evaluation and Peer Review Procedures or in

the other corresponding operational instruments.

Article 25. Update and validity

This Policy may be updated when necessary to incorporate changes in

editorial practices, applicable legislation, technologies, indexing systems, criteria

institutional or national and international standards related to the evaluation and

peer review.

The modifications will come into effect upon publication on the official Líder site.

Agricultural, without prejudice to the treatment that corresponds to the editorial processes

started previously.

This Líder Agropecuario Evaluation and Peer Review Policy will come into effect

effective from its publication on the official website of the magazine and will remain in force until

be replaced by a later version.

Institutional Declaration

Líder Agropecuario considers that peer review should contribute to improving the

communication of knowledge and not become an unnecessary barrier between

people who generate knowledge and society.

The journal will promote technically rigorous, independent, impartial and

respectful, adapted to the nature of scientific dissemination.

The decision to publish a manuscript will depend on its quality, relevance, integrity,

reliability and ability to communicate knowledge clearly and responsibly,

never of financial contributions, contracting of services, relationships

institutional support, institutional collaboration or external interests.