The manuscript review process includes the following steps and considerations: Submitted manuscripts are initially reviewed by the Journal's Editorial Team, which assesses compliance with the basic form and content requirements outlined in the author guidelines.

Manuscripts that do not align with the journal's focus and thematic coverage or that do not correspond to any of the published document types will be rejected. Articles that do not meet the conditions stipulated in the author guidelines will be rejected before the double-blind peer review process begins. Furthermore, the editorial committee reserves the right to consider any adjustments it deems necessary for the authors before the external peer review process begins.

RIP declares its commitment to the respect and integrity of published works; therefore, the preliminary review also includes plagiarism detection, according to the standards established by COPE (Committee on Publishing Ethics), using the Turnitin anti-plagiarism detection tool. Texts identified as containing plagiarism or self-plagiarism will be removed from the evaluation process.

Peer review is conducted using a double-blind peer review system, which maintains the confidentiality of the authors' and reviewers' names. External reviewers evaluate the scientific and argumentative quality of the text using the Article Evaluation Form, provide suggestions for adjustments, and offer a decision that may include the following options: a) accept; b) accept with minor modifications; c) accept with major modifications; or d) reject the submission.

The reviewers' suggestions, along with any issues identified by the journal's editorial team, will be communicated to the author, either for incorporation to improve the manuscript's quality or to explain the reasons for the rejection decision.

Each manuscript will be reviewed by at least two peer reviewers who are experts in the subject matter and methodology of the presented study. The journal's editorial team wishes to clarify that in the event of a disagreement between peer reviewers, or when so determined by the committee, a third peer reviewer's opinion will be included. The following is a decision map for the peer review process:

•  Tabla 1. Mapa de decisiones dentro del proceso de evaluación

  Par evaluador 1	Par evaluador 2	Par evaluador 3	Dictamen
  Aceptar envío	Aceptar envío	--------	Aceptar envío
  Rechazar Envío	Rechazar Envío	--------	Rechazar Envío
  Aceptar envío	Publicable con modificaciones menores	--------	Publicable con modificaciones menores
  Publicable con modificaciones menores	Publicable con modificaciones menores	--------	Publicable con modificaciones menores
  Aceptar envío	Publicable con modificaciones mayores	Publicable con modificaciones menores	Publicable con modificaciones
  Rechazar Envío	Aceptar envío	Rechazar Envío	Rechazar Envío
  Publicable con modificaciones menores	Publicable con modificaciones mayores	Rechazar Envío	Rechazar Envío
  Publicable con modificaciones menores	Publicable con modificaciones mayores	Publicable con modificaciones menores	Publicable con modificaciones mayores
  Rechazar Envío	Publicable con modificaciones menores	Publicable con modificaciones menores	Publicable con modificaciones mayores
  Nota: La decisión de aceptar, revisar o rechazar artículos es tomada por el Equipo Editorial, basándose en los informes de los evaluadores externos y la valoración interna realizada.

Note: The decision to accept, revise, or reject articles is made by the Editorial Team, based on the reports of external reviewers and the internal evaluation. The final decision will be communicated to the author within 90 days, starting from the date the author is notified that their manuscript has entered the external peer review phase.

The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to include accepted articles for publication in the issue they deem most appropriate. The revised manuscript must clearly indicate the changes made, either through the Change Tracker function or by highlighting the included information in a different color, always guaranteeing the anonymity of the author's identity.

Once the authors have made the requested revisions following the evaluation process, they must submit an adjusted version of the manuscript, incorporating the suggestions made during the review process, along with a letter to the Editor and the peer reviewers. This letter should detail and respond to each of the observations made and indicate the changes introduced in the manuscript. In cases where the evaluation report indicates "Publishable with Revisions," the Editor will decide whether the revised article should be submitted.