All articles that meet the formal and thematic requirements established by Estudios de la Gestión: Revista Internacional de Administración will be sent to the issue coordinators, who will submit them to an external evaluation by at least two anonymous peer reviewers. Additional reviews may be requested whenever deemed necessary. Manuscripts will circulate anonymously.

The results of this evaluation will be known to the issue coordinators and the editorial team. The evaluation criteria include originality, relevance of the topic, proper formulation of the research problem, broad theoretical or conceptual discussion, appropriate use of analytical methods, clear presentation of results, and relevance of the bibliography. In addition, proper language use, clarity, and rigor of exposition will be assessed.

The journal reserves the right to accept or reject submitted articles, essays, or reviews; the final decision rests with the editor. Publication may also be postponed to future issues when considered appropriate, subject to prior notification to the author(s).

The evaluation process for an article takes an average of six weeks.

Preliminary Review

Within a period of up to two weeks, the journal editor will send an email to the corresponding author, who submitted the article through the Open Journal Systems (OJS), informing them of the decision to accept or reject the manuscript for continuation in the editorial process. If accepted, the article proceeds to the peer-review stage.

The initial review considers the following aspects:

1. The manuscript is submitted through the OJS or journal system of the Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Sede Ecuador.

2. The manuscript falls within the thematic scope of the journal.

3. Authorship and institutional affiliation information are complete. The ORCID profile must include academic information (current affiliation and position), professional information, and publication records. Enabling automatic updates is recommended so that publications are incorporated directly.

4. All required documents are submitted correctly and completely (manuscript, cover letter including copyright declaration, title page, and, in the case of manuscripts with more than one author, the authorship declaration document).

5. The author guidelines are followed regarding section, structure, and length of the manuscript.

6. The bibliographic references are current, include a minimum of 30 cited references, and follow the Chicago author-date citation style. In addition, when applicable, each reference includes its corresponding URL and/or DOI links (these links must have been verified and correspond to the cited reference).

7. The manuscript has not been previously published in another journal.

8. The manuscript passes the plagiarism screening.

9. The manuscript passes the artificial intelligence (AI) usage screening within acceptable levels.

If manuscripts fail to comply with any of the above requirements, but do not show evidence of plagiarism, excessive use of generative AI, or prior publication, authors will be granted a period of 10 days to submit a corrected version. Otherwise, the manuscript will be rejected during the initial evaluation stage.

Manuscripts accepted for review proceed to the peer-review process, and authors may track the progress of their submission through the Estudios de la Gestión: Revista Internacional de Administración platform.

Peer-Review Process

As a preliminary step before the review, reviewers must approve the confidentiality and conflict of interest statement.

Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Statement

I understand that I will have access to confidential information; therefore, I may not use any information to which I have access (such as disclosure of results prior to publication or disclosure of the assessments produced) for personal benefit, nor disclose it or make it available for the benefit of any other person or organization. If, during the reading of the work, I identify any ethical impediment or conflict of interest that could affect my assessment, I will inform the editor so that the document may be reassigned to another reviewer.

Subsequently, reviewers must provide three types of assessment:

1. A summary of the quality of the article through a rubric.

2. Detailed comments and observations, indicating line numbers or including comments directly in the manuscript.

3. An editorial recommendation.

The evaluation criteria included in the rubric, which serve as the basis for comments and observations, include originality, relevance of the topic, proper formulation of the research problem, broad theoretical or conceptual discussion, appropriate use of analytical methods, clear presentation of results, and relevance of the bibliography. In addition, proper language use, clarity, and rigor of exposition will be assessed.

The editorial recommendation may correspond to one of the following criteria:

1. Accept Submission. This means that the manuscript is accepted without revisions and may proceed to the editing stage.

2. Publishable with Modifications. In this case, the author(s) must, within the period established by the editors, correct, reformulate, and expand the aspects requested in the evaluation.

3. Not Publishable. This means that the submission has not passed peer review and is not suitable for further consideration. The submission will then be transferred to the Archives section.

To carry out this task, reviewers are provided with a review form, which must be completed and uploaded during the evaluation process on the Estudios de la Gestión: Revista Internacional de Administración platform.

The results of this evaluation will be known to the editors and the editorial team.

The journal reserves the right to accept or reject submitted articles, essays, or reviews; the final decision rests with the issue editor.

Publication may also be postponed to future issues when considered appropriate, subject to prior notification to the author(s).

The peer-review process for an article takes an average of four weeks. However, in cases of discrepancies between reviewers, additional reviews may be requested, extending the process by at least two additional weeks.

Ethical Practices for Reviewers

• Conduct critical, honest, constructive, and unbiased reviews that ensure the academic quality of the research article.

• Notify the editors immediately if, for any reason, they are unable to review the article, either because it falls outside their field of expertise or because they cannot submit the evaluation report within the established deadlines.

• Maintain confidentiality at all times regarding the authorship of the article under review.

• Submit evaluation reports using the designated review template, providing justification for the assessments that support their decision.

• Accurately indicate bibliographic references to fundamental works that may have been overlooked by the author(s).

• Inform the editors of any similarity between the research article and other previously published works.

The evaluation process is conducted anonymously at all times. If, for any reason, the identity of the author(s), their institutional affiliations, or any other information that could compromise the anonymity of the document becomes known, the reviewer must immediately notify the editors.