ISSN 0121-5051
printed version

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

• Scope and policy
• Form and preparation of manuscripts
• Sending of manuscripts

General points about articles:

The journal’s publisher policy contemplates publishing specific articles on administrative and social topics:

Research articles: this type of article presents detailed original results from research projects. Its structure has four important parts: introduction, methodology, results and conclusions.

Reflection articles: this type of article presents the results of research from an author’s original source-based analytical, interpretative or critical perspective on a specific topic.

Review articles: this type of article must be the result of research analysing, systematising and integrating published or unpublished research results in a field of science and technology giving an account of advances and trends in R&D. It must give a careful bibliographic review having at least 50 references.

Specific guidelines for abstracts:

A maximum of 1,500 to 2,000 characters is preferred. The length may be proportionate to the article. That is, shorter articles warrant shorter abstracts, whereas an abstract for a longer article may be at the maximum.

Construction

• Abstracts should be clear and easy to read with enough detail to help the reader understand what the article is about.
• Sentences should flow logically.
• The abstract should be written with correct English-language grammar and spelling.

Elements

Key elements for an abstract vary according to the type of article. Note: the order in which key elements are placed may vary from article to article for any type.

Key Elements for Experimental/Research Articles

• Study purpose
• Brief description of the subjects
• Methodology
• Study location (if important or unusual)
• Results, conclusions or implications.

Key Elements for Discussion Articles

• Major theme
• Logical development of the theme
• Author’s point of view
• Implications, inferences, or conclusions.

Key Elements for Literature/Research Reviews

• Scope of the review
• Publication time span
• Publication origin
• Types of documents reviewed
• Author’s opinion of the reviewed literature, particularly unique or important research findings
• Conclusions about the research trends.

Abstracts should present key elements precisely and concisely, with no extraneous information. Abstracts should not contain data tables, figures, or references. Most of all, they must accurately reflect the content of the article.

Specific guidelines for articles and reviews:

INNOVAR’s publisher committee will consider the following aspects for accepting or rejecting eligible articles and reviews for publication in the first instance. Our contributors are thus asked to take the following recommendations into account:

1. Only unedited work (except for translations) duly studied and approved by the committee will be considered for publication;
2. Author status: authors must be professionals, teachers and researchers having at least postgraduate training and be experts on the topic;
3. The content of an article is an author’s responsibility, publisher policy being open and democratic;
4. An article’s title must be concise and correspond to its content whilst specifically indicating the topic or material being studied;
5. Any explanation concerning the work (nature, acknowledgements, collaborators, etc.) must be indicated by an asterisk in the title, linked to a footnote;
6. Each article must give the Journal of Economic Literature classification (JEL classification) to which it corresponds, according to the codes established for international searches of bibliographic production (the codes must be specific, no more than 3 being given). Such classification can be consulted at: http://www.aeaweb.org/journal/jel_class_system.html
7. A rticles must not be more than 25 A4-sized pages written with 1.5 line-spacing. Reviews are limited to 6 A4- sized pages;
8. The original article must be sent to our e-mail (revinnova_bog@unal.edu.co). All files must contain the text in Word, an analytical summary and the article’s key words (a minimum of four). Figures,Tables, images and any other elements must be attached in the original programmes with which they were created. Reviews must be sent as a .jpg file (300 dpi), with a scanned image extension .jpg of the front cover of the book which is being reviewed;
9. When delivering material, each author must complete, sign and send a form by e-mail which will provide a record of her/his complete data, as well as declaring that the article being put forward for consideration is unedited and is not being evaluated by any another journal.
10. Bibliographic citations within the text of an article must use the parenthetical system (surname, year, page), as follows: (Nieto, 1992, p. 4). A list of bibliographic references must be included at the end of the complete text of an article, in alphabetic order of authors’ surnames (including commas, brackets, full-stops, capital and italic letters), following the American Psychological Association (APA), sixth edition, referencing and style system for presenting publishable articles (for further information, you may enter the journal’s web page or get in touch with staff in the editorial office).

EVALUATION PROCESS

Evaluators’ role. Articles being put forward for consideration will be scrutinised by experts on the topic so that they may independently give their concept of the work (blind evaluation), taking the following criteria into consideration: quality or academic level, originality, contribution towards knowledge and teaching, clarity in presentation, clarity in how the work has been written and the literature used and cited, interest and topicality of the subject matter.

The evaluator may deliver his/her anonymous concept in the suggested format or in the way which suits him/her best. The journal has previously reviewed the evaluators’ academic profiles and considers that they have sufficient academic experience and knowledge for working independently.

Confidentiality. The journal’s evaluation will involve double-blind review conditions. The journal reserves all data pertaining to the authors and reviewers; the details and results of the process will only be revealed to those directly involved (authors, evaluators and editors). All authors are asked to avoid excessively citing themselves when writing their articles and avoid putting any type of data within the body of the text offering clues as to their identity or that of the group of authors. Likewise, allusions to research projects related to the articles or such like acknowledgements may only be included in the text if the article is approved (nevertheless, the editors must be informed of such data to avoid eventual conflicts of interest when readers come into contact with the work).

Evaluation time. An average of eight (8) months elapses between the time when reviewers have been asked to give their peer evaluation of any work, its acceptance and the delivery of their opinion. However, such period may be shorter or longer depending on reviewers’ availability and other factors which could postpone or accelerate the process. The journal will only send prospective authors an official communication about their articles once a decision has been made on whether to offer complete acceptance, conditional acceptance (slight changes must be made) or reject the article (modifications must be made which imply substantial rethinking of the proposal, or similarly when an article submitted for consideration has nothing to do with the journal’s field of interest).

Making corrections and sending in the corrected manuscript. If the peers’ opinions suggest that slight modifications should be made, then authors must adhere to a time-line which will not exceed eight (8) weeks. If the peers’ opinions demand that an article be submitted to substantial modification and the editorial committee considers that it could be accepted for a new cycle of evaluations, then the authors will have to remit their adjustments within a period no greater than 16 weeks. In all cases, a report must be attached in which all changes made to the proposal have been related.

Rejecting an article. The purpose of the evaluation process in Innovar (as well as validating advances being made in knowledge (know-how) in our thematic areas) is to offer authors an opportunity to improve their proposals, refine their thinking, so that they construct more solid articles. We would thus expect that authors know how to take advantage of evaluators’ comments when their document has been rejected for publication. Even though the journal is willing to receive rethought/reworked articles, authors are asked not to resubmit a corrected version of a rejected article before three (3) to six (6) months have elapsed. The editor will inform the authors of the time they must wait if they have expressed an interest in resubmitting their article. An article may receive a definitive rejection when it does not correspond to the journal’s editorial or thematic line, or when the editorial committee expresses its considered decision to reject it.

Short reports. As these are informative by nature, short reports will be evaluated internally by the journal’s editorial team who will decide on whether to publish them.

NOTES OF INTEREST

• An article having been sent to the journal and its eventual submission to an evaluation process does not oblige Innovar’s Editorial Committee or its editors to publish such work.
• Articles and reports will be received without interruption throughout the whole year.
• If the journal’s coordination office has not acknowledged receiving work submitted for consideration with a lapse of eight (8) days, please redirect your massage to the following optional e-mail: innovarjournal@gmail.com
• All authors cede their publication rights to the Universidad Nacional de Colombia’s School of Business Administration and Public Accountancy (Economics Faculty) when an article has been approved for publication.
• The articles published in Innovar must not appear in any other means of mass communication without citing prior publication in Innovar. In the case of publications which are compilations of other work, then the authors must ask the journal and/or the School of Business Administration and Public Accountancy’s express authorisation to submit such work.

1. Articles and reviews will be received throughout the year
2. The original article must be sent with its respective electronic file to the journal's address (Carrera 30 Nº 45-03, edificio 238, aula 06, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia. Apartado Aéreo 055051, o  al fax: (571) 3165000 Ext. 12308) or sent to our e-mail (revinnova_bog@unal.edu.co). The files must contain the text in Word, an analytical summary (not more than 120 words) and the article's key words (a minimum of four). Figures, Tables, images and any other elements must be attached in the original programmes with which they were created
3. All authors and contributors must follow the instructions pointed out in the section “Guidelines for contributing authors” before submitting any articles or briefings.

Text that will be able to contain referring information to the sending of the original.

http://www.innovar.unal.edu.co