About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Apertura is a periodic publication of scientific research and dissemination, specialized in educational innovation in virtual environments. Publishes original, unpublished and current research papers in Spanish, English, and Portuguese; all these are double-blind peer-reviewed.

The journal is aimed at the scientific community in the area of educational innovation in virtual environments, and to all the public interested in the subject.

The purpose of Apertura is to promote scientific communication and academic debate in the fields of virtual education, online, distance, and unconventional educational modalities; so it distributes educational research results, narratives of argumentative experiences in educational innovation and articles that promote the debate on topics on the field of education in virtual learning environments.

The publication is edited by the Universidad de Guadalajara, through the Sistema de Universidad Virtual and financed by the Academic, Administrative and Technological directions of UDGVirtual, in addition to the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) and the Coordinación de Investigación, Posgrado y Vinculación of the Universidad de Guadalajara.

The editorial line of Apertura is:

  • Learning management in virtual environments
  • Knowledge and cultural management in virtual learning environments
  • Management of virtual education systems
  • Educational innovation through the use of information and communication technologies

Periodicity

Apertura is semiannual; it publishes two numbers per year in the months of April and October.

The call for papers is open throughout the year.

Languages

Articles are received and published in English and Portuguese, as well as in Spanish.

Formats

Manuscripts are available in HTML, XML, PDF, ePub and Mp3 formats.

Fees

The journal does not charge fees for the submission, review, publication or any other editorial process of the articles.

Peer Review Process

For the evaluation, two stages are initially considered, an editorial assessment and an academic assessment.

Editorial assessment

Authors who submit an article for possible publication in Apertura must submit –complete and in its final version– the documentation indicated in the section the guidelines for authors. Once the editorial team accredits that the submission meets all the application requirements, the text will be sent to the editorial assessment, which includes the following stages:

  1. Accredit the review under Turnitin, a tool approved by the Editorial Board for plagiarism detection. Only after this step will it be possible to continue with the following stages of the editorial assessment. Any work that exceeds 20% similarity with previously published works will be rejected.
  2. It will be verified that the submitted text is related to the focus and scope of the journal.
  3. It will be checked that the text complies with each and every one of the indications of form, which are found in the requirements for the application and delivery of originals, as well as in the guidelines for authors.
  4. The writing of the material will be evaluated: it must present textual coherence, excellent syntax, as well as congruence between the written paragraphs.
  5. The bibliography used will be reviewed to ensure that it is pertinent and updated, as well as that it is duly standardized according to the APA Standard.
  6. In accordance with the editorial policy guidelines approved by the Editorial Committee, priority will be given to texts whose bibliography is delivered electronically and with active hyperlinks to the respective DOIs, in all cases where it corresponds.

Once the submitted article accredits the editorial assessment, the author will be formally notified of the registration and the beginning of the academic assessment process, within a maximum period of 30 days.

Academic assessment

Articles must favorably accredit the academic assessment process, which will operate under a double-blind peer review modality, where the identity of both the authors and the reviewers will remain anonymous:

1. The articles that accredit the editorial assessment, will be sent to academic experts in the same disciplinary and subject area, as those of the submitted text. The reviewers will be selected from the portfolio of referees (specialists from national and international institutions), who will issue an academic opinion.

2. The reviewers will be responsible for reviewing and analyzing the academic, theoretical and methodological relevance of each and every one of the articles assigned to them. They will be responsible for reviewing the explicit presence of the theoretical-methodological section in the articles, as well as their consistency with respect to the field of studies, the coherence between the academic contribution and the relevance of the findings described, as well timeliness of the bibliography that is used. The reviewers, once the article is received, will have a period of up to three weeks to review and submit their evaluation.

3. All texts will be sent to two experts assigned to an institution other than the authors' assignment, who will issue their comments based on the following possibilities:

Publishable without changes, Publishable with suggestions, Conditioned to changes or Non publishable.

Publishable without changes: it is the evaluation of excellence of the article, it means the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Publishable with suggestions: the author will receive the manuscript with observations and minor corrections that do not entail substantial modifications of the content; for example, errors in the writing, moderate discrepancies, subtle adjustments, among others.

Conditioned to changes: the author will receive the manuscript with observations and significant corrections that require substantial changes to the wording; for example, redoing tables and figures, rewriting a discussion, addressing or clarifying some concepts, among others.

Non publishable: the author receives the decision that the article was not publishable, and the evaluation of the experts.

4. In case one review is positive and the other negative, the text will be submitted to a third review with a new referee, whose assignment will also be made according to their specialty and the balance between evaluators.

5. For a text to be approved for publication by the Apertura Editorial Board, it is essential that at least two of the three reviews are positive.

6. In the cases in which an article received a review (or both) with positive value, but with corrections, the author will be informed by email, in addition to attaching the content of the blind review where the indications are made.

The variants resulting from the peer evaluation will be resolved as follows:

Opinion 1

Opinion 2

Opinion 3

Decision

Accepted

Accepted

 

Publishable without changes

Accepted

Conditioned to changes

 

Publishable with suggestions

Conditioned to changes

Conditioned to changes

 

Conditioned to changes

 

 

Accepted

 

 

Non publishable

Accepted

 

 

Conditioned to changes

Publishable

 

 

Conditioned to changes

Conditioned to changes

Non publishable

 

Non publishable

7. The editorial management will guarantee, in all cases, that the reviews delivered to the authors contain solid arguments that support the editorial decision.

8. In case of corrections are indicated with which the author does not agree, the author may appeal the comments of the review to the Editorial Board. The editor will have the final resolution considering both parts and his decision will be the one that best suits the interests of the authors and the journal.

9. In case of receiving comments, the author will have a period of 15 calendar days to send the new version of the work to the editor.

10. In the case that corrections are indicated in a second round by the judges, the procedure will be repeated again. If after the second attempt changes are requested again, the author will be notified that his article is not publishable because he has exceeded the limit in the modifications of the manuscripts.

11. Accepted documents will begin the editing process (style correction, metadata marking, training and layout), to later be included in the corresponding issue. The editor reserves the right to decide the inclusion of the contributions in the numbers they consider pertinent.

12. Once the style correction process has been completed, a preliminary version of the text will be delivered to the authors for revision and approval. The authors will have a period of five calendar days to turn in their approval. If no comments are delivered within the period, the journal will assume that authors have given their tacit approval.

Apertura establishes the following evaluation criteria for each section:

For research reports and experience reports:

  1. Reports must be unpublished
  2. Scientific robustness of the work
  3. Originality, topicality, relevance and contribution of research to the field of knowledge
  4. Clarity in the definition of purposes
  5. Adequate and rigorous methodology
  6. Clear results and discussions
  7. Justification of the conclusions
  8. Clear and fluent presentation of ideas
  9. Congruence between the objective, the methodology, the data and conclusions
  10. Relevance and timeliness of the cited references
  11. Level of mastery of the topic/subject of study of the article

For the essays:

  1. Essays must be unpublished
  2. Originality and timeliness of the information
  3. Clarity in the definition and discussion of findings
  4. Scientific soundness of the information and argumentation
  5. Appropriate methodology (if available)
  6. Clear and fluent presentation of ideas
  7. Relevance and timeliness of the cited references

Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal , so all its content is available for free, at no charge for readers or institutions. Users can read, download, distribute, print and link to the full text of the articles, as long as it is a non-profit activity and the source is mentioned.

About the arbitration committee

Functions of the arbitration committee

The arbitration committee is made up of researchers and academics specializing in the subject who evaluate and collaborate in national and international institutions.

The role of the members of the arbitration committee is to review and assess the relevance, originality, timeliness and quality of the articles. They are the ones who dictate the relevance and publication of the collaborations.

 The members of the arbitration committee are characterized for:

  •  Having experience in the opinion of editorial productions for magazines or publications.
  • Having experience in scientific research and dissemination.
  • Having published research papers, advances or products.
  • Being recognized as a trainer or researcher in other external institution from the one they work for.
  • Preferably that belongs to the National System of Researchers (SNI) or its international equivalent.
  • Have been invited as an evaluator in academic competitions or in organizing committees of conferences or events in which they have practiced the evaluation of academic contributions.

About the editorial board

The editorial board of Apertura is formed by an advisers and consultant team which is made up of experts with recognized international prestige in educational innovation in virtual environments with a background on academic activities of research or communication of findings, and are usually members of the National Researchers System or its equivalent. The members of the editorial board are collaborators of national or international institutions. 

In general, their functions are:

  1. Guiding the editor in making decisions
  2. Suggesting the main subject of each journal
  3. Advising to improve the overall quality of the journal.
  4. Requesting and ordering texts for publication in Apertura, which does not exclude them from experts’ review.
  5. Suggesting referees for the review of articles.
  6. Evaluating and define new evaluation criteria for the articles.
  7. Evaluating and suggesting new ways to handle the editorial process.
  8. Collaborating in Apertura’s dissemination.


Members of the current Editorial Board

Manuel Moreno Castañeda (President)

Universidad de Guadalajara / Sistema de Universidad Virtual, México

Lorenzo García Aretio


Universidad Nacional Educación a Distancia, España

Julio Cabero Almenara


Universidad de Sevilla, España

Claudio Rama Vitale

Universidad de la Empresa, Uruguay

Antonio Ramón Bartolomé Pina

Universitat de Barcelona, España

Marta Mena

Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina

Margarita Victoria Gómez

Universidad de Sao Paulo, Brasil

Lourdes Guàrdia Ortiz

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, España


Historical Editorial Board members

January 2014 - April 2016

Manuel Moreno Castañeda (President)

Universidad de Guadalajara / Sistema de Universidad Virtual, México

Lorenzo García Aretio

Universidad Nacional Educación a Distancia, España

Julio Cabero Almenara

Universidad de Sevilla, España

Claudio Rama Vitale

Universidad de la Empresa, Uruguay

Antonio Ramón Bartolomé Pina

Universitat de Barcelona, España

Marta Mena

Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina

Margarita Victoria Gómez

Universidad de Sao Paulo, Brasil

Lourdes Guàrdia Ortiz

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, España

 

January 2012- Diciember 2013

Manuel Moreno Castañeda (President)

Universidad de Guadalajara / Sistema de Universidad Virtual, México

Julio Cabero Almenara

Universidad de Sevilla, España

Lorenzo García Aretio

Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, España

Fernando Gamboa Rodríguez

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México

Julio Miguel Ángel Bazdresch Parada

ITESO, México

Ramón Ferreiro Gravié

Nova Southeastern University, EUA

 

November 2008- Diciember 2011

Manuel Moreno Castañeda

Universidad de Guadalajara / Sistema de Universidad Virtual, México

María Luisa Chavoya Peña

Universidad de Guadalajara / Centro Universitario de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, México

Sonia Reynaga Obregón

Universidad de Guadalajara / Centro Universitario de Ciencias Económico Administrativas, México

Julio Miguel A. Bazdresch Parada

Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Occidente (ITESO), México

Alejandro Pisanty Baruch

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), México

Lorenzo García Aretio

Universidad Nacional Educación a Distancia, España

Fernando Gamboa Rodríguez

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México / Coordinación de Universidad Abierta y Educación a Distancia, México

Julio Cabero Almenara

Universidad de Sevilla, España

Ramón Ferreiro Gravié

Nova Southeastern University/ Fischler School of Education and Human Services, EUA

 

November 2006 - Octuber 2008

Manuel Moreno Castañeda

Universidad de Guadalajara / Sistema de Universidad Virtual, México

Alejandro Pisanty Baruch

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), México

María Luisa Chavoya Peña

Universidad de Guadalajara / Centro Universitario de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, México

Ramón Ferreiro Gravié

Nova Southeastern University, EUA

Julio Miguel A. Bazdresch Parada

Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Occidente (ITESO), México

Sonia Reynaga Obregón

Universidad de Guadalajara / Centro Universitario de Ciencias Económico Administrativas, México

Wolfram Laaser

Fern Universität Hagen, Alemania

 

April - Octuber 2006

Manuel Moreno Castañeda

Universidad de Guadalajara / Sistema de Universidad Virtual, México

Alejandro Pisanty Baruch

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), México

María Luisa Chavoya Peña

Universidad de Guadalajara / Centro Universitario de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, México

Ramón Ferreiro Gravié

Nova Southeastern University, EUA

Julio Miguel A. Bazdresch Parada

Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Occidente (ITESO), México

Sonia Reynaga Obregón

Universidad de Guadalajara / Centro Universitario de Ciencias Económico Administrativas, México

 

November 2005 - March 2006

Julio Miguel A. Bazdresch Parada

Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Occidente (ITESO), México

Sonia Reynaga Obregón

Universidad de Guadalajara / Centro Universitario de Ciencias Económico Administrativas, México

María Luisa Chavoya Peña

Universidad de Guadalajara / Centro Universitario de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, México

Alejandro Pisanty Baruch

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), México

 

September - Octuber 2005

Julio Miguel A. Bazdresch Parada

Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Occidente (ITESO), México

Sonia Reynaga Obregón

Universidad de Guadalajara / Centro Universitario de Ciencias Económico Administrativas, México

María Luisa Chavoya Peña

Universidad de Guadalajara / Centro Universitario de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, México

Juan Campechano Covarrubias

Secretaría de Educación Jalisco / Formación y actualización de docentes, México

 

Indexing

Databases and index of evaluation, identification or impact of scientific journals

  • Conacyt Índice de Revistas Mexicanas de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica del Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
  • MIAR Matriz de Información para el Análisis de Revistas
  • Latindex Sistema Regional de Información en Línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal
  • Google Académico
  • Index Copernicus International (ICI World of Journals)
  • Dimensions Sistema de información de investigación vinculada


Databases and portals of open access electronic resources

  • Redalyc Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina y el Caribe, España y Portugal
  • Scielo México Scientific Electronic Library Online
  • Fundación Dialnet Portal bibliográfico de acceso libre con contenidos científicos en lenguas iberoamericanas de la Universidad de La Rioja
  • Biblat Portal especializado en revistas científicas y académicas publicadas en América Latina y el Caribe
  • REDIB Red Iberoamericana de Innovación y Conocimiento Científico
  • CLASE Citas Latinoamericanas en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades
  • IRESIE Índice de Revistas de Educación Superior e Investigación Educativa
  • SIS (Scientific Indexing Services)

  • BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine)

  • Scilit Base de datos de investigaciones científicas. Se integra de “scientific” y “literature”  

  • Journal TOCs Base de datos con índices de revistas académicas, Reino Unido

  • PKP Index

  • Amelica Índice de revistas para la publicación académica y la ciencia abierta 


Bibliographic database / Access per subscription

  • EBSCO (Academic Search) Search tool for open access journals and journals in special programs for developing countries

Aggregators


Reference directories of regular publications

  • DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  • ERIH PLUS European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences
  • Ulrichsweb Global serials directory
  • LatAmPlus Journal directory
  • OAJI, Open Academic Journals Index
  • DRJI Directory of Research Journals Indexing 

 Library Catalog

  • REBIUDG Library Network of the University of Guadalajara
  • SERIUNAM Registry of newspaper collections of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
  • Zeitschriftendatenbank (ZDB) Specialized database on serial publications of the Library of the University of Regensburg
  • WorldCat  Network of library content and services
  • Biblioteca Digital de la OEI
  • Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek (EZB) Base de datos bibliográfica de publicaciones periódicas de la Biblioteca de la ciudad de Berlín: Patrimonio Cultural Prusiano (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz) y de la Biblioteca Nacional Alemana (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek)

Statement of code of ethics

Apertura adheres to the norms of the Academic Coordination of the  Guadalajara, the guidelines of Mexico’s National Council of Science and Technology (Conacyt), and endorses the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); the actions we take regarding publishing misconduct will correspond to the guidelines of these committees, particularly to the Code of Conduct of COPE [http://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct]. We take into consideration the guidelines and recommendations of the international organizations that are recognized for its commitment to the publishing ethics, like databases, index, repositories, etc.


Authors responsibilities

Originality and plagiarism        
Authors assure that the work is original and unpublished. Apertura considers as:

  • Original: The manuscript is the product of the authorship of the person making the submission, without significantly deriving from their own or someone else’s work; it supposes a novel idea not conceived previously.
  • Unpublished: The manuscript has not been made known in any other format and medium, as is the case with theses, papers, etc. These two criteria will be guidelines to ensure that the work represents a true contribution to knowledge.
    Bad publication practices, voluntary or involuntary, are strongly rejected. Apertura considers as:
  • Plagiarism: Appropriation of someone else’s work or ideas in any form or extent, without the corresponding acknowledgment.
  • Self-plagiarism: Submission of previous works as new or original proposals.
  • Duplicate publication: Simultaneous presentation of the same work in different journals.
  • Partial publication: fragmentation of the same research work in different publications (APA, 2010).*

These behaviors are added to the falsification and fabrication of data.  Apertura uses the iThenticate program as an aid in the detection of plagiarism in received texts and considers as an unpublished text that which exceeds 80% originality.

*APA. (2010). Manual de publicaciones de la American Psychological Association. (3ª ed.; Trad. M. Guerra Frías). México, DF: Edit. El Manual Moderno.

All sources of information must be cited and there will be no absence of references [see Guidelines for authors]. Authors should include all corresponding references when doing self-citations (maximum three self-citations in total by all authors) from other texts that are already published, with the condition that they are relevant to generate new contributions to the field of knowledge and not to recycle own ideas of published works.

A study, your own or someone else's, should not be repeated totally or partially, either with the same data, hypotheses, discussion points and conclusions. Therefore, the recycling of previous works should be avoided and submitted as if they were new proposals. Authors must report the details of any related manuscript, published or not, even if it is in a different language.

The authors respect the intellectual property and give the corresponding credit to the work of other authors, so the source of all the information that comes from third parties (published or not) must be indicated.

Submitting manuscripts that are simultaneously under consideration within other publications is prohibited. The simultaneous proposal of a publication in different scientific journals is considered a bad practice by the authors and is reprehensible.

Authorship

The article will be written with precision and objectivity, based on the veracity of the information contained. Likewise, they assume that the data analysis report is true, proper and complete, in addition to the fact that all collaborators participated in the conception of the manuscript. The limit of co-authors is three. The number of co-authors cannot be modified once the work has been sent to the platform.

It is important to inform the authors that, in accordance with good editorial practices, two articles under the same authorship presented in the current call of the journal will not be published; neither will any author be duplicated in consecutive numbers of Apertura, so that it will be necessary to wait for a period of reception of investigations.

Validity and reliability

The seriousness of the observations and the requests of the reviewers must be considered for the correction of the articles, the indications of the reviewers in which they disagree will be answered in a timely, clear and justified manner.

If the author detects an error in his article, he must immediately inform the editor of the journal for its correction.

The work should not have been influenced by any personal, commercial, political, academic or financial interest. Authors should explicitly report any funding received for the completion of the researched article.

 

Reviewer responsibilities

Confidentiality

The reviewer will respect the total confidentiality of the manuscripts.

Review delivery time

If reviewers feel qualified, they should agree to evaluate a manuscript only if they consider themselves capable of delivering it in the time requested (three weeks maximum). The evaluator must inform the journal if he will not be able to meet the evaluation delivery period and request an extension.

If reviewers cannot review the text which they are invited to evaluate, they can express some suggestions of evaluators, in relation to their experience and without any personal consideration or intention that the manuscript receives a positive or negative evaluation.

Suspicion of ethical violations

The reviewer will always inform the editor if they find any substantial similarity between the manuscript and any other published work.

Objectivity

If there is a conflict of interest that affects the issuance of an impartial opinion, the reviewer should notify the editor. In case of identifying the authorship of the article,  it must be notified to the editor of the journal, who will propose a new reviewer. The adjudicator must also inform the editor if when reviewing the document, he does not feel he has enough experience to issue his opinion.

The information obtained from the reviewing process will not be used for any personal benefit.

The evaluation of the manuscript must be expressed in an objective, clear manner, and supported by solid arguments. Personal criticism is not valid.

 

Editor responsibilities

Quality of content

The editor’s decision of accepting or rejecting a research article is based in the compliance with the basic criteria for the submission of research articles, in accordance with the editorial line of the journal and the relevance of the subject. The main consideration is originality and scientific merit. Likewise, the editor's decision will be final.

The editor agrees to submit to arbitration all original studies that he receives and that meet the criteria of the initial review.

Quality of reviewers and confidentiality

The editor agrees that the manuscripts will be reviewed by qualified evaluators and specialists in each subject area. The editor will provide guidance to the evaluators on what is expected of their evaluation (opinion format, evaluator code of ethics, deadlines). At all times care will be taken that the opinion is ethical and of quality. The editor will continually feed the database of reviewers, where the community of the journal and the topics updated in the field are reflected. The editor will request support from the members of the Editorial Committee for the assignment of reviewers.

In the event that the editor considers that an opinion is offensive or libelous for the author or the journal, the evaluator will be removed and his evaluation will be discarded. Therefore, a new reviewer will be invited to carry out his work with the expected seriousness.

A fair and impartial arbitration decision will be issued to all manuscripts offered for publication.

Evaluation times

The editing and publication process will be carried out in a respectful, transparent and objective manner. The stage of the process and the resolution will be informed to the authors in the corresponding times.

Adequate scientific communication between authors and reviewers will be encouraged in order to ensure the quality of the manuscript and the review process.

Conflict of interests

The editor is responsible of informing readers about the steps that were followed to ensure that contributions received an impartial and objective evaluation, as well as to declare any possible conflict of interest in the management of an editorial process due to institutional affiliation, ethical position, personal, family or work relationship.

The editor will publish apologies, corrections, clarifications or retractions when necessary.

Information obtained from the review process will not be used for personal gain.

The editor guarantees the responsibility of the authors and reviewers. It also ensures the quality and moral value of the journal.

Allegations of malpractice

Malpractices can be identified by the editorial team, editor, reviewers or readers, in which cases the accusations will be dealt with as long as they are substantiated and evidence is provided. To initiate attention to these cases –and as far as possible–, the flow diagrams proposed by COPE will be taken as support and reference, adapting them to the structure of the journal.

Some examples of bad practices in authorship can be: plagiarism, self-plagiarism, previous publication of the same material, falsification of data and research results, etc.

The first respondent will be the editor of the journal, who in the first instance will contact the designated author to make the specific case known to him and will request a response to the allegation, without revealing the name of the person who made it. In case of not receiving a satisfactory answer, an investigation will proceed.

The case will be shared with the members of the Editorial Board, who collectively will make a correct decision in the tests given and the severity of the case, which may result in the cancellation of the article from the review or editing process, or the elimination of the article if it were published on the journal page.

When the offense is serious and involves a violation of the law, the case will be referred to the Office of the Attorney General of the Universidad de Guadalajara, from where the corresponding process will be followed.

If it is considered necessary or useful for the scientific community, the case could be shared with the universities or research centers of the investigated author, as well as the corresponding government agencies (Conacyt, in case of Mexico).

To prevent and attend cases of bad practices early, the use of a digital plagiarism detection system has been implemented in which all articles are submitted before being accepted for evaluation. With this digital system the level of similarity with other texts is identified, in addition to the fact that the cited information is correctly attributed to the original authorship.

Complaints attention process

Complaints will be received from the authors as long as there is justification, which will be addressed following the guidelines and flow diagrams of COPE, as well as the internal rules of the journal.

In no case the complaint resolution process will involve revealing the identity of the reviewers. Any complaint about an evaluation process will be addressed as long as the author identifies possible errors in the revision of the text, but the aptitude of the reviewer cannot be questioned.

Complaints will be addressed to the editor, with all the arguments and evidence necessary to consider the case. If necessary, the editor will request the support of the Editorial Board or one of its members who is an expert on the subject of the article that is being evaluated.

A response to the complaint will be given within a period of three months.

Sponsors

UDG Virtual. Technological, Administrative and Academic Direction

CONACyT. Index of Mexican Scientific and Technological Research Journals

University of Guadalajara. Coordination of Research and Postgraduate Studies