Editorial and Peer Review Policy
Editorial Principles
Avances en Interacción Humano-Computadora (AIHC) is committed to the publication of high-quality scholarly research in Human-Computer Interaction and related disciplines. The journal promotes scientific rigor, ethical conduct, transparency, fairness, and academic integrity throughout the editorial process.
Editorial decisions are based exclusively on the scholarly merit of submitted manuscripts, including their originality, methodological rigor, relevance, clarity, significance, and contribution to the field. Editorial decisions are made without regard to the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, age, or other personal characteristics.
Peer Review Model
The journal employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process.
Under this model:
- Authors do not know the identities of reviewers.
- Reviewers do not know the identities of authors.
- All manuscripts are evaluated confidentially and impartially.
Authors are responsible for removing identifying information from manuscripts prior to submission to facilitate anonymous review.
Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor to determine whether the submission:
- Falls within the scope of the journal;
- Meets basic standards of academic quality;
- Complies with submission requirements;
- Adheres to ethical and editorial policies.
Manuscripts that do not satisfy these criteria may be rejected without external review.
External Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate:
- Originality and novelty;
- Relevance to the field;
- Methodological rigor;
- Quality of analysis and interpretation;
- Clarity of presentation;
- Adequacy of references and related work;
- Ethical considerations, when applicable.
Reviewers provide recommendations that may include:
- Accept;
- Accept with minor revisions;
- Major revisions required;
- Reject.
The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.
Editorial Decisions
Based on reviewers’ reports and editorial assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
- Accepted;
- Accepted with Minor Revisions;
- Major Revisions Required;
- Resubmit for New Review;
- Rejected.
Authors are expected to address reviewer comments carefully and provide a response explaining revisions made.
Confidentiality
Editors and reviewers shall treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents.
Information obtained during the review process may not be used for personal advantage or disclosed to third parties without authorization from the journal.
Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could affect their objectivity.
Individuals with conflicts of interest shall not participate in the review or editorial decision-making process for the affected manuscript.
Appeals
Authors who believe that a manuscript was rejected due to a procedural error or misunderstanding may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.
Appeals will be reviewed independently, and the journal reserves the right to seek additional expert opinions before issuing a final decision.
Research Integrity
The journal reserves the right to investigate allegations of plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, manipulated images, authorship disputes, peer-review manipulation, or other forms of research misconduct.
Appropriate editorial actions may include rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction, in accordance with the journal’s Research Integrity and Corrections Policies.
