1. Evaluation stage
2. Publication stage
3. Duration of the editorial process
4. Article acceptance statistics

The RCGJMC editorial process includes the following independent stages: evaluation and publication.

1. EVALUATION STAGE

The RCGJMC evaluation stage consists of three procedures to guarantee the scientific quality of the published contents: 1) Preliminary evaluation by the RCGJMC Editorial and Scientific Boards; 2) Double-blind evaluation by expert peers (reviewers); and 3) Final decision by the Editors. Despite the diversity of disciplinary approaches of the articles submitted to the RCGJMC, they all undergo the same publication process, and the reviewers follow the same evaluation standards and considerations.

a) Preliminary evaluation. Every article submitted to the RCGJMC undergoes an initial review by the Editors, the Editorial Board, and the Scientific Board. In this stage, the texts are reviewed to verify topic relevance, word count, and compliance with APA citation and RCGJMC author guidelines. The article's originality is verified using the iThenticate platform to detect plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or duplicate publication.

The RCGJMC does not accept manuscripts that have already been published, are in the process of publication, or are under evaluation in other journals or any other printed or electronic media. It does not allow the use of previously published data unless new analyses are carried out using other techniques, different perspectives, or in combination with the latest data.

The articles approved in this first stage are sent to at least three anonymous external peer reviewers, either national or international. If the article does not comply with the RCGJMC author guidelines or editorial policy, the manuscript will be returned to the author with the reason for its rejection.

b) Evaluation by expert peers (reviewers). The peer review is a double-blind process managed through the RCGJMC’s Open Journal System platform. The reviewers evaluate thirteen aspects of the articles: Title, abstract and keywords, introduction/context, literature review, theoretical/conceptual framework, methods, results, discussion and study limitations, conclusions, and referencing (APA 7th edition), as well as legibility and writing style; coherence and interest to readership; and originality and contribution to knowledge. After these assessments, the reviewers will issue their decision and recommendations on the article review form. 

At least 90% of the collaborating peer reviewers are external (national and foreign), outside of the Escuela Militar de Cadetes “General José María Córdova” (Colombian Army Military Academy - ESMIC). In recognition of their significant and voluntary contributions to the continuous improvement of the quality of published content, the RCGJMC publishes a list of peer reviewers who reviewed the articles.

c) Final decision by the Editors. The RCGJMC will consolidate the peer reviewers’ concepts to decide on the articles. Should the evaluating peers’ decisions conflict, the article will be sent to another evaluating peer who, uninformed of previous decisions, will offer a fourth opinion. The Editors, jointly with the Editorial and Scientific Boards, will decide on the publication of the article in case of further controversy.

The RCGJMC has established the following five results as a product of the peer evaluation:

1) Accepted for publication. The article fulfills all the RCGJMC academic and style requirements, and no modifications are necessary.

2) Publishable with changes. The article fulfills most RCGJMC academic and style requirements; however, minor modifications are required. The evaluating peers’ comments and the needed changes are sent to the authors so they can make the necessary adjustments.

The authors have 15 working days to make the requested adjustments and forward them to the RCGJMC for review by the Editorial and Scientific Boards. If there is no response from the authors within the specified period, it will be understood that they have desisted from their intention to proceed with the publication, and the shipment will be filed.

3) Resend for review. The article fulfills some of the RCGJMC academic and style requirements. However, significant changes are required, which will entail a new round of evaluation by the reviewers. The evaluating peers’ comments and the needed changes are sent to the authors so they can make the necessary adjustments.

The authors have 60 working days to make the requested adjustments and forward them to the RCGJMC for review by the initial evaluating peers (who will issue their final decision concerning the acceptance or rejection of the article). If there is no response from the authors within the specified period, it will be understood that they have desisted from their intention to proceed with the publication, and the shipment will be filed.

4) Forward to another publication. The article does not meet some RCGJMC academic and style requirements but has a high educational value. The author is recommended to apply to another journal. Peer reviewers' comments are sent to the authors.

5) Not publishable (rejected article). The article does not meet the RCGJMC academic and style requirements. It is rejected, and re-submittal is denied. Peer reviewers' comments are sent to the authors.

2. PUBLICATION STAGE

The articles accepted after the RCGJMC evaluation move on to the publishing stage, which involves the following three procedures:

a) Proofreading. The article has been proofread, and this version is sent for approval by the authors, who have 8 working days to verify, approve, or make the necessary changes. Once the RCGJMC receives the revised version, the title, abstract, and keywords will be translated.

b) Layout. The author-approved and corrected version goes through an initial layout process. This preliminary version is returned to the authors for final approval. The authors have eight working days to verify the preprint version.

c) Declaration of authorship, originality, and publishing rights. The authors sign a declaration of originality, authorship, and publishing rights form to close the publication stage. In this form, the authors agree to cede the publishing rights (while retaining their moral rights) to ESMIC University Press (Sello Editorial ESMIC) / RCGJMC, under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives.

Under this license, authors and readers can copy and disseminate the article in the final version published online by the RCGJMC, provided that the author(s) of the article are recognized and identified, and there is no commercial use of the final published article or derived works or modified versions.

The RCGJMC reserves the right to review articles at any time, including those already approved for publication, for their quality, focus, and scope.

3. DURATION OF THE EDITORIAL PROCESS

The typical times for the RCGJMC editorial process are the following:

a) Eight working days between article reception and the preliminary evaluation by RCGJMC Editorial and Scientific Boards.

b) Ninety working days from the preliminary evaluation by the RCGJMC Editorial and Scientific Boards and the evaluation results by expert peers (reviewers).

c) Eight working days between the evaluation results by expert peers (reviewers) and the final decision by the Editors.

d) Thirty working days from the final decision by the Editors (if approved) and the publication stage.

Items that have completed the two stages are included in the next issue and are available for publication.

Authors can check the status of their manuscript at any time in the Open Journal System.

4. ARTICLE ACCEPTANCE STATISTICS

The following are the statistics of articles received, accepted, and rejected between 2018 and 2023. Over these years, the average rejection rate before moving on to peer review for articles that failed to meet RCGJMC author guidelines or editorial policies was 82.6%.

a) 2024: Volume 23, Issues 45, 46, 47, and 48

1) Articles received: 294
2) Articles published: 55
3) Articles rejected by peer reviewers/editorial council: 239
4) Acceptance rate: 18.7%

b) 2023: Volume 21, Issues 41, 42, 43, and 44

1) Articles received: 228
2) Articles published: 44
3) Articles rejected by peer reviewers/editorial council: 186
4) Acceptance rate: 18.4%

c) 2022: Volume 20, Issues 37, 38, 39, and 40

1) Articles received: 190
2) Articles published: 49
3) Articles rejected by peer reviewers/editorial council: 139
4) Acceptance rate: 19.0%

d) 2021: Volume 19, Issues 33, 34, 35, and 36

1) Articles received: 326
2) Articles published: 50
3) Articles rejected by peer reviewers/editorial council: 224
4) Acceptance rate: 15.3%

e) 2020: Volume 18, Issues 29, 30, 31, and 32

1) Articles received: 285
2) Articles published: 42
3) Articles rejected by peer reviewers/editorial council: 243
4) Acceptance rate: 14.8%

f) 2019: Volume 17, Issues 25, 26, 27, and 28

1) Articles received: 236
2) Articles published: 41
3) Articles rejected by peer reviewers/editorial council: 195
4) Acceptance rate: 17.4%

g) 2018: Volume 16, Issues 21, 22, 23, and 24

1) Articles received: 194
2) Articles published: 32
3) Articles rejected by peer reviewers/editorial council: 162
4) Acceptance rate: 16.5%