Editorial Policy and Management Manual

1.1. Review Method: Double-Blind Peer Review

The RMF/MJP mandatorily adopts the double-blind peer review system to assess the scientific quality of all submitted manuscripts.

• Strictly Bidirectional Anonymity: The identities of the authors are kept completely hidden from the reviewers throughout the evaluation process. Similarly, the identities of the members of the evaluation panel remain strictly anonymous to the authors.
• Elimination of Bias: This mechanism ensures that the scientific evaluation focuses exclusively on the technical merit, originality, and methodological rigor of the work, preventing biases associated with the researchers' gender, nationality, career background, or institutional affiliation.

1.2. Operating Rules of the Review Panel (The Three Blind Reviewers)

Once a manuscript passes the initial relevance screening, the assigned Associate Editor (Specialist or Transdisciplinary) will form a review panel under the following operating rules:

• Panel Composition: Each manuscript must be assigned to a panel of three (3) external reviewers who are experts of recognized standing in the field of the scientific document under review.
• Eligibility Criteria and Anti-Endogamy Measures:
  • Reviewers must hold a doctoral degree and have a verifiable track record of scientific publication in the specific subject area of the article.
  • None of the reviewers may belong to the same institution as the authors of the manuscript.
  • The simultaneous use of more than one reviewer from the same research institution for a single manuscript will be avoided.
• Response Times: Reviewers will have a maximum of 21 calendar days to issue their formal technical report.
• Structure of the Review: Each reviewer must evaluate the manuscript and issue a reasoned recommendation under one of the following categories:

• Accept the manuscript without modifications.
• Accept the manuscript with minor revisions (does not require a new round of peer review).
• Accept with major revisions (requires a mandatory re-evaluation).
• Reject the manuscript.

1.3. Integration of Reviews and Internal Communication Workflow

The internal review process follows a strict hierarchical chain designed to ensure scientific consensus, institutional rigor, and editorial quality.

1.3.1. Role of the Assigned Associate Editor in Integration

Upon receiving the three independent reviews, the assigned Associate Editor will integrate them into a single technical report. Their role is not merely statistical; they must critically evaluate the panel's arguments and draft a unified technical report that harmonizes the observations and clearly guides the authors on the required changes they must make.

1.3.2. Internal Validation Chain (Editor-in-Chief and Technical Editor)

Before the panel's comments and the analytical synthesis are sent to the authors, the Associate Editor will forward the complete file of recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief and the Technical Associate Editor for official validation:

• The Technical Editor: Will verify that the process complies with institutional timelines and double-blind anonymity guidelines, and that the methodological documentation in the file is in order.
• The Editor-in-Chief: Will evaluate the scientific soundness of the synthesis. In the event of significant discrepancies among the reviewers (for example, two acceptance opinions and one strong rejection), the Editor-in-Chief, supported by their technical team, will make a compromise decision or request a fourth review if the complexity of the case warrants it. Once validated by mutual agreement, the official notification is sent to the corresponding author.

1.4. Authors' Response Mechanism and Re-review Protocol

When a manuscript is reviewed with recommendations for revisions (minor or major), the institutional response process is strictly governed by the following procedure:

1.4.1. Obligations of the Corresponding Author

The corresponding author will be the sole authorized channel of communication. The author must submit the requested files within the allotted timeframe (usually 15 to 30 business days):

• The revised manuscript with changes highlighted or tracked.
• A supplementary response document (explanatory letter) without a handwritten signature or any personal or institutional identifying marks. This file must list in detail, point by point, how each of the comments from the three reviewers and the Associate Editor was addressed. If the author disagrees with any criticism, they must provide a strong justification based on experimental evidence or supporting scientific literature.

1.4.2. Protocol for Hierarchical Re-evaluation of Responses

The supplementary response document and the revised manuscript will undergo a rigorous three-tiered review process before any acceptance is confirmed:

• First Level (Assigned Associate Editor): The Associate Editor thoroughly reviews the unsigned response letter. He or she verifies that no critical comments from the original panel have been omitted or evaded by the authors. If the Associate Editor considers the responses to be scientifically satisfactory, he or she issues an endorsement of approval.
• Second and Third Levels (Editor-in-Chief and Technical Editor): The re-evaluated file is simultaneously forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief and the Technical Editor.
  • The Technical Editor confirms that the revisions maintain the required methodological structure and that the files are free of metadata identifying the author.
  • The Editor-in-Chief performs the final review. Once both have granted their approval and confirmed that the manuscript meets the standard of excellence for agricultural crop health, the article is formally accepted.

1.5. Communication Infrastructure and Editorial Channels

• Current Transition Phase: Currently, all communication and document exchange between Authors, Associate Editors, Reviewers, the Technical Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief takes place formally via the journal's institutional email.
• Technological Migration: The RMF/MJP is in the midst of an active technological transition. Soon, the entire editorial workflow will be managed exclusively, centrally, and automatically within the Revista Mexicana de Fitopatología's own web platform, permanently eliminating the use of email for these purposes.
• Exclusion of OJS: It is established as institutional policy that the RMF/MJP does not and will not use the external Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, prioritizing the development, control, and security of its own native digital infrastructure.

1.6. Document Preservation and Management (Individual Files)

To ensure the journal's transparency and auditability and to respond to potential appeals or audits by international indexing organizations (such as SciELO or COPE), the RMF/MJP maintains a strict archiving protocol:

• Single, Individual File: The entire editorial process for each submitted manuscript, without exception, is archived in a single, individualized digital file organized chronologically (initially on institutional email/storage servers and subsequently migrated to the journal's own platform database).
• Minimum Required Content of the File:
  • Original version of the submitted manuscript (with date and time of registration).
  • Plagiarism detection software reports.
  • Communications and assignments from the Associate Editors.
  • Information on the three assigned blind reviewers and the deciding reviewer.
  • Technical integration of comments approved by the Editor-in-Chief and Technical Editor.
  • Unsigned response document submitted by the authors.
  • Revised versions and final decision on acceptance or rejection.
• Permanent Confidentiality: These individual files are strictly confidential and protected from public access. Only the Editor-in-Chief, the Associate Technical Editor, and the assigned Associate Editor have access and reading privileges for these files.