Brief Description of the Article Selection Process

Vive Revista de Investigación en Salud subjects manuscripts to double-blind peer review by specialist peers.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a preliminary examination by the Vive Revista de Investigación en Salud Editorial Team. Special attention is given to ensure the article aligns with the journal's objectives. This decision is communicated to the author within 2 weeks of article reception.

If the manuscript meets guidelines and is within the journal's scope, the editors send the article to at least two selected international reviewers. Reviewer guidelines and criteria focus on content quality, relevance, scientific nature, topic interest, scientific methodology (or lack thereof), updated use of primary and secondary literature, and bibliography. The peer review system is anonymous. Reviewers are encouraged to follow COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, available at www.publicationethics.org.

The final decision of article acceptance or rejection rests with the Editorial Team. Decisions are typically communicated within 6 weeks of article submission.

Summary of the Peer Review Process

1. Pre-review: Authors (first registered on the journal platform https://revistavive.org/index.php/revistavieve/user/register) initiate the process by submitting the article via Vive Revista de Investigación en Salud's OJS platform https://revistavive.org/index.php/revistavive/login. At this stage, the editor, in collaboration with the Editorial Committee, conducts a preliminary review of the manuscript, evaluating:
   • Content quality, relevance to the discipline, scientific nature, topic interest, scientific methodology (or lack thereof), updated use of bibliography and relevant legal material.
   • Relevance to the journal's editorial line.
   • Compliance with submission requirements.
   • Initial anti-plagiarism and intensive AI use check. If criteria 2 and 3 are not met, authors are informed and allowed to make corrections. If plagiarism is detected, and depending on complexity, the Editorial Committee will inform authors of rejection or the possibility of correction. If all criteria are met, the manuscript proceeds to the peer review phase.
2. Peer Review: The editor-in-chief, in collaboration with the Editorial Committee, requests peer reviewer collaboration based on the following criteria:
   • The reviewer possesses academic background, researcher profile, and publications in the relevant knowledge area.
   • No conflicts of interest that could affect the evaluation process.

   Reviewers use an online form or a Word file for evaluation, and are encouraged to include comments or submit a copy of the manuscript with anonymous comments.

   Evaluation options are:

   • Rejected: Manuscript does not meet relevance, originality, and quality criteria.
   • Accepted with Major Corrections: Article may be accepted after a second peer review process.
   • Accepted with Minor Corrections: Editorial Committee requests changes from authors. If these changes are incorporated, the article is accepted.
   • Accepted: Article can be published.

   In cases where the Committee deems it necessary, a third reviewer is consulted, whose criteria are considered in the final decision.

3. Approval or Rejection: The final publication decision rests with the Editorial Committee and requires compliance with style norms and anti-plagiarism review. Authors whose articles are approved with modifications and/or approved for publication commit to making content, format, and style corrections within five business days of the request.

Detailed Description of the Article Selection Process

Step 1. Pre-verification

Responsible party: Editor-in-chief

Outcome: The editor sends the author an email with the decision to accept the article for peer review, a request for article modification, or a decision to reject the article.

Timeline: 2 weeks

The pre-verification stage reviews the following elements:

• Whether the article falls within the journal's thematic and methodological scope.
• Whether authorship, affiliation, and metadata information is complete and reliable.
• Whether the document complies with journal criteria (see Guidelines for Authors).
• Whether the bibliography section is adequately sized, respects proportions of Scopus or WoS indexed documents, is international, up-to-date, and consists of recognized sources with their respective DOI links.
• Whether the article has been previously published.
• Whether the article adheres to good scientific journal publication and ethical practices described by COPE: The Committee on Publication Ethics, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and ELSEVIER: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.
• Whether there is any evidence of plagiarism or intensive AI use in the manuscript.
• Whether the manuscript meets minimum standards for style, spelling, and punctuation.
• Whether the article includes required annexes, including the Article Submission Letter (https://revistavive.org/index.php/revistavive/information/authors).

Manuscripts showing evidence of plagiarism, false author information, or any other ethical infringement will be immediately rejected.

Articles not meeting other criteria (unrelated to plagiarism or ethical aspects) will have an opportunity to submit a modified version within a specified timeframe. Manuscripts not including required documentation (https://revistavive.org/index.php/revistavive/information/authors) cannot proceed to the review process until these requirements are met.

Due to the diversity of health science topics, the editor-in-chief may request assistance from the Editorial Coordinator and Scientific Committee for the initial review.

Online Tracking: Once an article is accepted for peer review, its status on the journal platform changes from "pending assignment" to "under review." From that point, authors can check the process status in the "Review" tab for tracking.

The submission platform assigns a unique identifier to each article. When making inquiries or sending emails, ensure the assigned code is included in the subject line.

Step 2: Peer Review

Responsible parties: Editor-in-chief, Assistant Editor.

Timeline: Approximately four to six weeks, depending on the availability of selected reviewers.

In Vive Revista de Investigación en Salud, article review involves evaluation by peers who provide expert advice on manuscript content (reviewers are not part of the journal's Editorial Team). It is a double-blind review, meaning neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identities. A minimum of two reviewers will be assigned. All this promotes article confidentiality and review process objectivity.

These are the requirements/selection criteria for peer reviewers:

• Reviewer must hold at least a master's degree in the article's relevant knowledge area.
• Scientific publications within the last two years on the article's thematic area.
• Not affiliated with the same institution as the article's authors.
• No conflicts of interest with the journal or any of its members: authors, editors, committee members, or administrative staff.

Selected peer reviewers receive an invitation from the editor-in-chief or assistant editor to participate in the review process. Reviewers may accept or decline the invitation. If accepted, the reviewer accesses the anonymous full article text and an online form to guide their review. The process occurs on the journal's OJS (Open Journal System) platform or via institutional email.

In this process, in addition to the article's theme and knowledge field, evaluation covers: title wording, abstract content/structure, keywords selected, introduction content/structure, methodology presented, argumentation level, results, discussion, conclusions, and overall article impact/contributions to the knowledge area.

The peer reviewer submits general comments and recommendations for text improvement and issues a recommendation with one of the following verdicts:

• Publishable without changes: The revised article version meets requirements and can be published as is.
• Publishable with minor changes: Article requires minor, easily correctable changes.
• Publishable with major changes: Article requires substantial changes; the new version with author corrections must be resubmitted for re-evaluation by peer reviewers or Editorial Committee members.
• Not publishable (rejected): Article is unsuitable for publication. Its publication would not contribute to its scientific knowledge field.

In cases where the Committee deems it necessary, a third reviewer's criteria will be considered in the final decision. The editor-in-chief will issue a certificate to the issue's peer reviewers, sent by email within the next month.

Suggestions reviewers wish to share with the editor-in-chief regarding review parameters/indicators, ethical aspects, or recommendations are welcome. These suggestions can be sent to the journal's editor email.

Reviewers must follow COPE guidelines and have these responsibilities: contribute to publication decisions, be punctual, uphold confidentiality, ensure objectivity standards, acknowledge sources, and declare conflicts of interest.

Step 3. Editor's Decision

Responsible parties: Editor-in-chief, Editorial Committee

Timeline: Once recommendations from at least two reviewers are 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 authors (publishable with minor or major changes). If the editor's decision contradicts peer reviewer recommendations, this decision must be justified.

The decision to publish may be delegated to guest editors (if applicable). Any editor with a conflict of interest will be excluded from the decision.

The author receives an email with the editor's decision, including a summary of reviewer comments/suggestions and a deadline for the author to complete the revision process.

Online Tracking: The editor's decision reflects a change in the article's status on the web platform. If the decision is "not publishable," the article is immediately removed from the journal's review process, and authors find details in the "archive section."

Step 4. Manuscript Adjustments by Authors

Responsible parties: Authors

Timeline: Once the editor's decision is issued, authors have these deadlines to review reviewer comments, submit changes, and required documentation:

• Maximum one week for "publishable with minor changes" decisions.
• Maximum two weeks for "publishable with major changes" decisions.

Publishable:

The "publishable" decision is issued when:

• Reviewer comments were positive, and the article was accepted for publication without further reviewer comments.
• The article required minor changes, which were made and successfully passed the second review round.
• The article required major changes, which were made and successfully passed the second review round.

Upon receipt of the final article version, a final plagiarism check is performed, and all required documents are verified for completeness.

Online Tracking: Once the "publishable" decision is issued, the article's status on the journal platform changes to "in editing." Authors can monitor progress in the "in editing" section.

Publishable with Minor Changes:

Here, the article requires only minor, easily correctable changes. Authors must address all reviewer suggestions within the established timeframe. If an author decides not to comply with any recommendation, they must justify it in writing. In such cases, the editor reserves the right to make the final decision on such considerations. Once changes are received, the editor-in-chief may decide to issue the "publishable" decision or may request further clarifications or changes if necessary.

Publishable with Major Changes:

Once comments are received, the editor-in-chief may issue the "publishable" decision if all appropriate corrections were made, or "not publishable" if the article fails to meet reviewer criteria.

Step 5. Layout, Approval, and Publication

Responsible parties: Authors, publication coordinator, designer.

Timeline: 20 days for layout and review.

• 3 business days to address any questions during the review process (authors).
• 3 business days to make changes if required (designer).
• 3 business days to publish the final version online (publication coordinator).

Accepted articles are sent to the assigned designer, who initiates the review and layout process. Through the publication coordinator, the designer may consult authors on any questions regarding style, context, or arrangement of figures/tables (technical terms, coherence improvements, formula/symbol structure, missing sources/citations, etc.).

Authors have five days to respond to and address all designer requests.

The final layout version includes the DOI identifier and assigned page numbers (publication coordinator).

The publications team informs the author of any changes made for technical or administrative reasons within the set deadlines.

Step 6. Correction and Retraction

Responsible parties: Publications Team, Editorial Committee, authors, readers, and institutional bodies.

Timeline: In case of notice, one week to initiate the protocol.

Documentation: Meeting minutes, institutional protocols, and ethical guidelines from COPE: The Committee on Publication Ethics, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and ELSEVIER: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.

Vive Revista de Investigación en Salud is an open-access publication, meaning anyone can view and verify the text without limitations or cost. If you, as a reader, have any questions about an article, you may send your concerns, comments, and suggestions to the journal's email address.

If you find any demonstrable error or ethical problem, please contact Vive Revista de Investigación en Salud to initiate an appropriate investigation for immediate action. If the error or ethical problem is confirmed, the corresponding correction or retraction process will begin.

Once an article is published, corrections of significant errors are published separately via a retraction document at the end of each journal issue.

Minor errors not affecting work comprehension will be corrected in online versions within 15 days of publication.

Retractions are published when authors, readers, or editors find significant errors in a published article. Such errors can be involuntary or result from scientific misconduct.

Editors will study the document in question and communicate with authors and relevant editorial bodies before making a final retraction decision. For this purpose, institutional protocols and recommendations from COPE: The Committee on Publication Ethics, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and Elsevier Publishing Ethics Resource Kit will be followed to identify alleged misconduct or malpractice.

By accepting the editor's invitation to evaluate the article, the reviewer must declare no conflicts of interest and adhere to the journal's ethical standards for confidentiality and plagiarism, which are published on its website.

Step 7. Publication Ethics and Social Control

The Editorial Team takes all reasonable measures to identify and prevent the publication of manuscripts involving malpractice like plagiarism, incorrect citation, or data falsification. If malpractice is found, the manuscript will be directly rejected. If malpractice is discovered after publication, a retraction or correction will follow.

Readers are invited to report plagiarism to the editor's email address. Once potential malpractice is confirmed, the editorial procedure for the manuscript is suspended. The deadline for observations is 10 business days. If there's no response or after receiving author explanations, the author must make a decision. The editor's decision is appealable to the Journal's Editorial Committee (secretaria@revistavive.org).

Acknowledgements

Peer review is a fundamental pillar in ensuring the excellence, quality, and originality of our publications.

In gratitude for this contribution, the Journal formally grants the following recognitions to its reviewers:

• Digital Certification: Upon completion of each review process, the Journal will issue and send a personalized digital certificate accrediting the peer review work performed. This document serves as valid curriculum evidence for institutional and academic purposes.
• Annual Visibility and Indexation: To provide public and formal recognition, the Journal includes and publishes the official list of reviewers who actively collaborated during the period in its year-end issue.