Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Revista Facultad de Ingenieria started in 1984 and is a publication of the School of Engineering at the University of Antioquia.

The main objective of the journal is to promote and stimulate the publishing of national and international scientific research results. The journal publishes original articles, resulting from scientific research, experimental and or simulation studies in engineering sciences, technology, and similar disciplines (Electronics, Telecommunications, Bioengineering, Electrical, Computer Science, Mechanical, Chemical, Environmental, Materials, Sanitary, Civil and Industrial Engineering).

In exceptional cases, the journal will publish insightful articles related to current important subjects, or revision articles representing a significant contribution to the contextualization of the state of the art in a known relevant topic. Case reports will only be published when those cases are related to studies in which the validity of a methodology is being proven for the first time, or when a significant contribution to the knowledge of an unexplored system can be proven.

All published articles have undergone a peer review process, carried out by experts recognized for their knowledge and contributions to the relevant field.

The journal is issued quarterly, in March, June, September and December.

The articles published in Revista Facultad de Ingenieria are indexed or summarized by: 

  • Institute for Scientific Information Thomson Reuters (ISI)
  • SciELO Colombia
  • Cengage Learning, Inc
  • Chemical Abstracts Plus CAplus
  • Índice Nacional de Publicaciones Seriadas, Científicas y Tecnológicas de Colciencias PUBLINDEX
  • Índice Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología ACTUALIDAD IBEROAMERICANA
  • EBSCOhost
  • Proquest CSA
  • Sistema Regional de Información en Línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal LATINDEX
  • Índice de Revistas Latinoamericanas en Ciencias PERIODICA
  • Red de Revistas Científicas de América latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal RedALyC
  • Red Iberoamericana de Innovación y Conocimiento Científico REDIB
  • Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

General Information

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Topic and Authors Indexes

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Author Guidelines

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Subscription Form

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Key Words

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All articles submitted to the journal for publication undergone a  follow-up system, which aims to keep control of the submission evolution until the final decision of their publication.

Once an article is received, no later than 15 days, the section Editor verifies that the content is related to the topics and purposes of the Journal, and that the article has been written according to the publishing instructions sent to the authors.

Upon recommendation of the Editorial Committee, the section Editor will send the article to at least three peers for revision. The would-be peers are selected from researchers' databases to which the Universidad de Antioquia's School of Engineering Journal has access. The peers will be active researchers in the areas of interest having a recognized trajectory in areas related to the topic of the article. These conditions are verified through their curriculum vitae and by reviewing their publications over the last two years.

Both peers and authors cannot belong to the same institution. Peers-to-be will be consulted about their availability to assess the article, and in the case they accept the revision, they will be provided access to the article and to the assessment guide in order to record their comments and recommendations about the acceptance or rejection of the text. It is expected that the peers who accept the assessment of the articles commit to carry out the assessment of the article within a month after receiving the document.

After the articles are evaluated for at least two peers, the editor of the Journal will send the evaluated articles to consideration of the Editorial Committee. When assessments are not sufficiently supported, or if there are discrepancies among concepts or arguments which are not clear for the committee, the concept of additional peers can be requested.

The Committee will make a decision regarding the publication of the article according to the assessments, bearing in mind the answers of the authors for the questions made by the peers and the editor, and supported by the criteria of their members based on the editorial policies. The decision can be one of the following: acceptance or rejection of the article.

The articles accepted by the Committee will be placed in a waiting list for their publication, taking into account the order of submission and approval. No more than one article per author will be published in each Journal issue. The Journal  will not publish articles of the same main author in consecutive issues. No more than three articles of authors that belong to the editing institution will be published per issue.


Publication Frequency

With a quarterly publication frequency, the journal will be issued in March, June, September, and December. Each issue will be available on the web site of the Journal once its editing processes have been completed.


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.


Declaration of Publishing Ethics and Best Practices for Editors

Revista Facultad de Ingeniería -redin- (ISSN: 0120-6230 e-ISSN: 2422-2844) is a quarterly publication supported by the School of Engineering at the University of Antioquia.

The journal is regulated according to the rectory Resolution 22863, August 2006, by which the general policies and regulations for academic journals of the institution are defined.
The Editorial Board of the Journal is committed to the scientific community to ensure ethics throughout the editorial process and the quality of papers published according to the standards of indexing systems and summary for scientific journals, guaranteeing compliance with good editorial practices using as reference the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors prepared by the Committee on Publication Ethics -COPE- (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).

1. Study design and ethical considerations

Good research must be well argumented, planned, properly designed, and ethically approved.

1.1 Research protocols should seek to answer specific questions, rather than just collect data.

1.2 Early agreement on the precise roles of the contributors and collaborators, and on matters of authorship and publication, is advised.

1.3 For all studies involving individuals under study or medical records or anonymous human tissues, it is necessary to have the formal and documented ethical approval of a duly constituted ethics committee for research.

1.4 The use of human biological samples under investigation must be conducted in compliance to the highest ethical standards, as recommended by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

1.5 Animal experiments should be fully in accordance with ethical principles and local and national provisions.


2. Data analysis

Data should be appropriately analysed, but inappropriate analysis does not necessarily amount to misconduct. Fabrication and falsification of data do constitute misconduct.

2.1 All sources and methods used to obtain and analyze data, including any electronic preprocessing, should be fully disclosed; detailed explanations should be provided for any exclusions.

2.2 Methods of analysis should be explained in detail and if they are not commonly used, references should be provided.

2.3 Any bias situation that has been considered should be reported in the discussion section of the paper, stating its impact on the desing and analysis stages.


3. Authorship

3.1 The award of authorship should balance intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis and writing of the study against the collection of data and other routine work. If there is no task that can reasonably be attributed to a particular individual, then that individual should not be credited with authorship.

3.2 To avoid disputes over attribution of academic credit, it is helpful to decide early on in the planning of a research project who will be credited as authors, as contributors, and who will be acknowledged. 3.3 All authors must take public responsibility for the content of their paper. The multidisciplinary nature of much research can make this difficult, but this may be resolved by the disclosure of individual contributions.

3.4 Individuals who contributed to the work but whose contributions were not of sufficient magnitude to warrant authorship should avoid their name to be used in some work to give more credibility to their content.


4. Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest comprise those which may not be fully apparent and which may influence the judgment of author, reviewers, and editors. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived. They may be personal, commercial, political, academic or financial. “Financial” interests may include employment, research funding, stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies and company support for staff.

4.1 Such interests, where relevant, must be declared to editors by researchers, authors, and reviewers.

4.2 Editors should also disclose relevant conflicts of interest to their readers. If in doubt, disclose.

4.3 Editors, editorial and scientific boards should notify the journal of any significant conflict of interest.

4.4 Sometimes conflicts of interest can become so strong that manuscripts cannot be published, or some people (for example evaluators or editors) are excluded from the decisions about the publication.


5. Double- Blind Peer review

Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by editors to provide written opinions, with the aim of improving the study. This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.

5.1 Authors must suggest two international reviewers and two national reviewers who cannot be part of the authors’ affiliation institutions, but there is no obligation on editors to adopt these. Once the editorial board confirms that the manuscript meets the criteria established in the rules for the submission of papers and the quality to start the evaluation process, it will be sent to three peer reviewers according to their academic level, publications, investigative experience, among others. Once the request for reviewing is accepted, reviewers are requested to submit their concept within a period of no more than 30 days.

5.2 The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who may be asked (with the editor’s permission) to give opinions on specific sections.

5.3 The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.

5.4 Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors’ permission.

5.5 Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased and justifiable reports.

5.6 If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should write in confidence to the editor.

5.7 The evaluation of the paper will be based on the pertinence of the subject for its publication in the journal, relevance of the subject, thoroughness and soundness of ideas and concepts, as well as the overall organization, structure and wording of the paper and strength of the sources.

5.8 The evaluation must consider the contribution to the knowledge field, the innovations, the critical judgment developed, the appropriate form of citation, the bibliographic references used, its correct wording, among others. Recommendations will be indicated, if pertinent, for the modification and improvement of the text evaluated.

6. Plagiarism

Plagiarism varies from the absence of references to the use of the ideas of others, published and unpublished, including the presentation of "new" authors of a complete document, sometimes in another language. It can occur at any stage of planning, research, writing or publication: it applies for printed and electronic versions.


All sources should be cited appropriately; if the authors have used the work and/or words, illustration of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted.

Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others’ published and unpublished ideas, including research grant applications to submission under “new” authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in a different language. It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing, or publication: it applies to print and electronic versions.


All sources should be disclosed, and if large amounts of other people’s written or illustrative material is to be used, permission must be sought.

By virtue of its commitment to the scientific and academic community, for the Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, any form of plagiarism is strictly prohibited and the texts that are identified will not be published; If published, the journal’s retraction notice will inform readers that the paper has been retracted in the electronic version.


In the event that Revista Facultad de Ingeniería publishes the article and discovers that it has been published in another journal, the editorial board shall request to the editorial board of the second journal retracting the publication, stating the reasons for such a decision.

In Revista Facultad de Ingeniería when a work is received by an author, the first step is to scan the manuscript using plagiarism detecting tools such as plagiarisma http://plagiarisma.net/es/, Plagscan http://www.plagscan.com/docman and soon crosscheck http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html. In case of finding documents describing essentially the same research or if it has been published in another journal or primary publication, the author will be notified and the publication will be rejected. When the similarity of the documents is not found, the evaluation process of the paper is developed and if it is approved for publication, taking into account that the evaluation process takes a few months, before the layout process can be carried out, the plagiarism tools previously mentioned will be used again.


7. Reduntant publicacion

Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions.

7.1 Published studies do not need to be repeated unless further confirmation is required.

7.2 Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of meetings preclude subsequent submission for publication in the Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, unless substantially improved work with new results (50%), and deeper analysis with new contributions is submitted.

7.3 Re-publication of a paper previously published in another journal, in the same or in a different language than the journal is not acceptable in the Revista Facultad de Ingenieria.

7.4 At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related papers, even if in a different language, and similar papers in press.

Don't forget to save this link into your bookmarks and share it with your friends.


8. Dealing with misconduct

8.1 Principles

8.1.1. The general principle confirming misconduct is intention to cause others to regard as true that which is not true.

8.1.2. The examination of misconduct must therefore focus, not only on the particular act or omission, but also on the intention of the researcher, author, editor, reviewer or publisher involved.

8.1.3. Deception may be by intention, by reckless disregard of possible consequences, or by negligence. It is implicit, therefore, that “best practice” requires complete honesty, with full disclosure.

8.1.4. Codes of practice may raise awareness, but can never be exhaustive.

8.2 Investigating misconduct

8.2.1. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise questions of misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue the case. However, knowing how to investigate and respond to possible cases of misconduct is difficult.

8.2.3 It is the editors who make the final decision; they can be based on the consultations to the legal office of the University.

 8.3 Serious misconduct

8.3.1 Editors must take all allegations and suspicions of misconduct seriously, but they must recognize that they do not usually have either the legal legitimacy or the means to conduct investigations into serious cases.

8.3.2. The editor must decide when to alert the employers of the accused author(s).

8.3.3. If editors are presented with convincing evidence—perhaps by reviewers—of serious misconduct, they should immediately pass this on to the employers, notifying the author(s) that they are doing so.

8.3.4.  If accusations of serious misconduct are not accompanied by convincing evidence, then editors should confidentially seek expert advice or legal support.

8.3.5. If the experts raise serious questions about the research, then editors should notify the employers.

8.3.6. If the experts find no evidence of misconduct, the editorial processes should proceed in the normal way.

8.3.7Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to accusations of serious misconduct.

8.4 Less serious misconduct

8.4.1 Editors may judge that it is not necessary to involve employers in less serious cases of misconduct, such as redundant publication, deception over authorship, or failure to declare conflict of interest. Sometimes the evidence may speak for itself, although it may be wise to appoint an independent expert.

8.4.2. Editors should remember that accusations of even minor misconduct may have serious implications for the author(s), and it may then be necessary to ask the employers to investigate.

8.4.3. Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to any charge of minor misconduct.

8.4.4. If convinced of wrongdoing, editors may wish to adopt some of the sanctions.

8.5. Sanctions

Sanctions may be applied separately or combined. The following are ranked in approximate order of severity.

8.5.1. A letter of explanation to the authors, where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.

8.5.2. A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.

8.5.3 An editorial giving full details of the misconduct.

8.5.4 Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual, unit, or institution responsible for the misconduct, for a stated period.

8.5.5 Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the OJS, informing other editors and the indexing authorities. The retraction may be initiated by Revista Facultad de Ingeniería in the following cases: intentional errors, previous publication, plagiarism or unethical conduct, and the cases contemplated by the COPE’s retraction guide. Retraction is a mechanism that seeks to correct information and publish and alert readers about unreliable, incorrect or incomplete information that may affect partially or completely the nature of a paper.


Editorial Process

The Revista Facultad de Ingeniería -redin-, through Open Journal System (OJS) as its online plataform http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/ingenieria/ and its e-mail revistaingenieria@udea.edu.co. Guarantees the confidentiality of the evaluation process at all times: the anonymity of the reviewers and authors; the reviewed content; the reasoned report issued by the reviewers and any other communication issued by the editorial, and scientific boards as required. The team responsible for the journal, in all cases, will give immediate and sufficient attention to the clarifications, complaints or appeals hat an author wishes to refer to the editors or the editorial board or the reviewers of the paper.  Although the editorial board approves papers based on criteria of quality, investigative rigor, relevance and taking into account the peer evaluation, authors are responsible for the ideas expressed in their own texts (Resolution 21231-2005, article 6), as well as the investigative processes underlying them. Finally, regarding the evaluation of papers, the journal will avoid conflicts of interest, defined as the activities that may distort the judgment or modify the selection criteria of the papers by any participant in the process . In any case, those responsible for the journal require that participants in the process of evaluation and publication of papers make such conflicts explicit. When relevant to readers, the latter information will be made public.


1. Reviewing process

In the Revista Facultad de Ingeniería –redin-, for the reviewing process, papers are only received through the OJS platform through the web page http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/ingenieria/.The first step is to scan the manuscript using plagiarism detecting tools such as plagiarisma http://plagiarisma.net/es/, Plagscan http://www.plagscan.com/docman and soon crosscheck http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html.

If under this review process, it can be considered not previously published, the verification of the following information is initially done:

Date of submission of the paper: supplied by OJSPaper titleRevision letter of presentation and assignment of copyright, which is correctly and completely completed In the content of the paper the following aspects are verified:Title in Spanish and English Resumen and Abstract Palabras clave and Keywords Complete information of the authors (Institutional affiliation, research group, postal address, city, country)Review of references. (IEEE citation style and ascending order)

The author should Avoid placing figures before their first mention in the text

The paper may have a maximum of five self-citations

The figures must comply with the requirements of the guide for authorsThe number of pages of the paper is verified according to the instructions for authors, depending on whether it is a review or a research paper.

After this first review, if the manuscript does not fulfill all the requirements, authors are notified through OJS and requested the necessary adjustments to continue the process. Then, it is decided which papers will begin the arbitration process.  It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that all sections of this document and the final accepted version of the manuscript have been read and approved by each of the contributing authors.

The thematic editor of the journal, in charge of the evaluation process of the paper, determine whether the paper is suitable for publication and the quality of English is enough to send it to arbitration process. In case of finding that the paper does not meet the minimum quality requirements, the work is rejected and the correspondence author is notified. When the paper meets these requirements it will be sent out for three single-blind peer-reviews (within a period of one month) through the OJS of the journal until receiving at least two evaluations of the work. For the reviewing process, the journal has two formats, one for review papers and the other for research papers or case reports. In addition, reviewers can send additional files if they deem it necessary, and can also record their findings or observations in the body of the article, and send these files to the journal through the OJS. The evaluations are sent by the journal to the correspondence author through the OJS and are given a deadline to respond to them and send the latest version of the paper.


Once the new version of the paper has been received with the changes and the responses to the evaluations, the Editorial  Board will review this material, if there are major revisions, the authors' replies and the latest version will be sent back to the reviewers. In case the evaluations have suggested minor revisions, the Editorial Board accepts or declines the submission. The editor in charge of the evaluation of the paper shall notify  the author (s) the decisions about the paper.

2. English proofreading

When the paper successfully exceeds the scientific quality assessment, the manuscripst are submitted to the plagiarism detection programs listed above. If it has been previously published, it is rejected, otherwise the manuscript undergoes English proofreading. This procces is done through e-mails between the journal and the correspondence author until the author adjusts the paper to the quality demanded by the journal. Once you have the approval of the quality of English by the correspondent editor, the editorial style process begins. 

3. Review of editorial style

During this stage messages are exchanged by e-mail between the author and the staff in charge of this work in the journal, the author is asked for answers at times defined by the journal taking into account the observations made. The journal reserves the right to edit, clarify or shorten the manuscript if deemed necessary by the editor before the document is published (spelling, diagramming, citation, among others). Once the paper meets the requirements, the manuscript undergoes layout process before publication. At this stage, it is defined the issue in which the paper will be published.

4. Layout and publication processes

Using Indesign software, the paper is given the format. After the first layout, the journal verifies the content has not been altered and it is subsequently sent to the correspondence author, requesting a review; If necessary, some adjustments are indicated to satify both the author and the journal. Through OJS the number of the journal to be published is created and the paper is included.


Guidelines for Reviewers

In the Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, the review is carried out by a panel of external experts, to the affiliation institutions of the authors of the paper chosen by the editors to give their opinion in writing, with the purpose of improving the paper. In this journal the  double-blind review is carried out, to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers  and guarantee impartiality, objectivity and reduce bias in the evaluation process.


After establishing the paper meets the criteria and the quality to start the reviewing process, through the OJS platform the request is made to reviewers according to their academic level, publications, investigative experience, among others. The reviewers are asked about their availability to perform the arbitration of the paper, a response must be given within 5 days. When the reviewers decline the invitation, the journal must found at least two alternates. Once the request for arbitration has been accepted through the OJS, the reviewers commit themselves to submit their concept within a period of no more than 30 days in order to avoid long intervals of time in the reviewing process.


The reviewing process of the paper will be based on the pertinence of the subject for its publication in the journal, relevance of the subject, thoroughness and soundness of ideas and concepts, as well as the overall organization, structure and wording of the paper and strength of the sources.


The reviewing must consider the contribution to the knowledge field, the innovations, the critical judgment developed, the appropriate form of citation, the bibliographic references used, its correct wording, among others. Recommendations will be indicated, if pertinent, for the modification and improvement of the text evaluated.

According to the peer review, they are also consulted on the classification of papers according to the following definitions:

  • Scientific and technological research papers: This kind of paper presents original results of research projects. The structure of the paper generally contains four excerpts: introduction, methodology, findings and conclusions.
  • Review paper: This paper is the result of a research study which analyzes, systematizes and integrates published or unpublished research findings, within science and technology fields, in order to summarize its current state, progress and development trends. It is characterized by the presentation of a careful literature review of at least 50 references.
  • Case report: A document that presents the results of a study on a specific situation in order to report the technical and methodological experiences considered in a particular case. It includes a systematic review of literature on similar cases.


Every review will include a recommendation to the Editor. This recommendation will be one of the following:

  • The paper is accepted in its present form.
  • The paper is acceptable with minor revisions and no further review is requested.
  • The paper may be acceptable with major revisions. Acceptable pending another review following significant revisions.
  • The paper is rejected and no recommendations are provided.

Once the reviewer submits the evaluations to the journal through the OJS, the thematic editor of the journal, based on the evaluations and the arguments presented in them, makes the decision regarding the publication of the paper in the journal. In some special situations, the final decision of the journal may not coincide with the recommendation of some evaluator, because there are papers that have up to 3 and 4 evaluations that may present contradictions. The final decision is taken by the Editorial Board based on the joint analysis of all evaluations received.


1. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts will be handled in a confidential manner; this applies to reviewers and also  to peer reviewers who may be asked to give their opinion on specific sections. The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied 


Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors' permission.


Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and justifiable reports.


If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should write in confidence to the editor


2. Conflicts of interest

Reviewers should notify the editor if there is any potential conflict of interest with the manuscript. The conflict of interest can be:


Academic conflict of interest: past or present association as thesis advisor, or thesis student; collaboration on a project or on a book, article, report, paper, or conference proceedings within the last 48 months; Co-edition of a journal, conference proceedings within the last 24 months.


Personal conflicts of interest: family relationship as spouse, child, sibling, or parent or any other that might affect the judgement.


Financial conflict of interest: Dependance on one of the authors of the paper for a scholarship, financial support for an internship, resources for a research project and any other situation that may affect the evaluation process, must be declared.


Work related conflict of interest: Interests in a new job in which one of the authors could be the boss, one of the authors was the boss in the last 48 months, some of their close family has a job in which one of the authors is a superior.


Paper-content conflict of interest: Previously known the results presented in the article, participates in the research project from which the paper is derived, or any other situation on the content of the paper that may bias its judgment.


Since Redin uses the double-blind review process, the potential for conflict of interest is considerably reduced.


3. Additional recommendations

The title should accurately, clearly, and concisely reflect the emphasis and content of the paper.

The use of thesauri is recommended instead of terms that are not standardized in the respective discipline of the paper in order to boost its visibility.


Both, Resumen and the Abstract must be consistent in in both languages (English and Spanish), they must clearly describe the importance of the work, methodology, results and conclusions. Also in the Resumen and in the Abstract it is recommended the use of thesauri and terms different to those used in the title to expand the possibilities of retrieving the paper through searches in databases or open internet.


The Journal expects the papers to contribute to the state-of-the-art in the field.


If the reviewer can verify that the paper is unpublished and not a copy or slight modification of previously published works, it must be notified to the journal. Likewise, if the reviewer finds that the methodology and results presented are previously published, or there is a similar report, it must be declared to the editor of the journal to request an evaluation of the paper.


The methodology presented must be sufficiently clear and descriptive, so that any reader can easily understand it, both the materials (purity, brand, origin, etc.) and methods and equipment must be well specified (standards, protocols, models, resolution of measurement of equipment, etc.).

The results must be presented logically reflecting a thematic or methodological order. They must indicate the respective standard deviations and must be interpreted and explained. Do not repeat the presentation of results in tables and figures, authors should use only one of the two options. The papers to be published in this Journal should present a good structure, be clear and easy to understand even for readers who are not experts in the subject. It should ensure the use of technical terms and not the common jargon; The abbreviations, acronyms, and terms of equations must be defined at least the first time they are mentioned in the document. It is recommended to use the international system of units, including equations and calculations when the papers contain them. Check the figures and tables are presented in the text correctly. The conclusions should be based on the observations and results already discussed, and must be coherent clear, objective and conclusive, not a summary of the results. Regarding bibliographic references, it is important to verify that they are updated, sufficient, that are not redundant, coming from reliable information sources, and verifiy that no more than 5 self-citations are used in the paper.


4. Access to the Open Journal System platform to accept or decline the review

If you already have an account, please login to accept or decline the review process, as well as to access the full manuscript and record your review and recommendation. The link is http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/ingenieria


If you have lost your username and password, you can click on the following link to change your password (you will receive an e-mail along with your username and password).



In the review section you will find “Review steps”. Please select an adequate option. If your answer is “unable to do the review” or “able to do the review”, the system leads to a standard email to the Section Editor.



5. Guidelines for Reviewing


Login into the journal’s web site:



Revista Facultad de Ingeniería has registered you in the Open Journal System providing a user and a password.


If you have lost you user and password, please click on the following link and change your password. You will receive an e-mail.




Reviewing Steps


  • Please develop the review process in English language. If the origin language of the authors is Spanish you can develop the process in this language.
  • In the third option, you can download the manuscript from the Journal Web Site to your computer by clicking on the file name.
  • In the fourth option, you may comment if you have conflicts of interest and write some comments about it.
  • Please do not reveal your name within the text of your review. If this is the case, please go to the option File/options/General and change user name.
  • In the fifth option, you will find the Reviewing Form, please complete it.
  • In the sixth option, upload the reviewed file.
  • In the seventh option, you will find a recommendations list for the editor. Please select the most relevant options.


Please pay attention to the Reviewing Form . You should explain and support your judgment


Copyright policies

  1. The Author is entitled to self-archive the pre-print version (i.e. the pre-peer-review version).
  2. Restrictions on the version prior to peer review: Not to be disclosed: i) in the proceedings of a conference, ii) as a paper in a journal, iii) in a web page, unless it is part of a thesis or final report of a project.
  3. The author can archive the post-print version (i.e. the final version after the peer review).
  4. Restrictions on post-peer review: Once the paper is accepted, it can be published by the author in the pdf version generated by the publisher with DOI.
  5. Copyright: The authors transfer the copyright of the paper to the journal, which is protected by the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Colombia license.
  6. Authors who submit papers to the journal should be the exclusive holders of the author's copyright and moral rights.
  7. The list of the authors in the manuscript should include only those who were directly involved in the process of the work and therefore the ones responsible for its content.
  8. The Editorial Board and Scientific Board of the Journal and the Administration of the School of Engineering have no responsibility for the content of the published articles, which is the sole and exclusive responsibility of the authors.
  9. The authors must comply with the authorship requirements mentioned in the instructions to the authors.
  10. The authors must declare that the manuscript is original, has not been submitted simultaneously to another publication either in printed or electronic format, in English or in any other language.
  11. Authors must declare that all authors have read and approved the final version of the submitted manuscript.

Esta publicación hace parte del Sistema de Revistas de la Universidad de Antioquia
¿Quieres aprender a usar el Open Journal system? Ingresa al Curso virtual
Este sistema es administrado por el Programa Integración de Tecnologías a la Docencia
Universidad de Antioquia
Powered by Public Knowledge Project