All work received by the Editorial Committee deserve an immediate acknowledgment.

The Editorial Committee, in the first instance, consider the presentation and style of the item. It will then be submitted to a peer review system. They will participate in the referendum two specialists in the subject scientists, whose views will be considered for acceptance of work. In case of divergence between the referees, the article and the opinions will be submitted to a third reviewer. When the work has been accepted, the manuscript with the opinions of the authors reviewers to be sent to make the necessary changes. If the corrected version was not returned within six months after receipt of the review it will be considered that the work has been removed for publication. The final decision on acceptance of a job will be for the Editorial Committee, taking into account the views of the reviewers.

The order of publication will serve dates of receipt and acceptance of work. The date of receipt corresponds to the version that meets the requirements of presentation and style requested by the magazine. When the work is accepted for publication, the main author will be notified in writing of the journal issue in which it appears and the publication fee.

No work that can be integrated as a unit, are presented separately in the form of small contributions or numbered notes will be accepted. It also will not be accepted preliminary or inconclusive contributions that are feasible to finish the medium or short term. All work rejected for publication will not be accepted anymore.

Next we inform the methodology for publishing an article on RICS:

1st Phase:

1.1 To convey via email (rics@cenid.org.mx) his work on extensive.

1.2 Review by the editorial board of the originality of the writing will be brought by email and by official letter of the result of this first phase in a period not exceeding 25 - 30 days.

1.3 In cases in which the editorial board finds some duplication in the work at length, he will send them the observations found in writing and to grant him 10 days to resubmit work extensively with the corrections.

1.4 In cases in which the editorial committee did not find any comments to the extensive work will proceed with Phase 2.

2nd Phase:

2.1 Once the author (s) is aware of the results of phase 1 a start will be given to the process of peer review, which must not exceed 150 - 240 days for the editorial board received the observations that peers make each item.

2.2 The author (s) is required to respond to each of the observations within a period not exceeding 15 working days once it is passed on email the recommendations of the evaluation committee issue and will take up to two opportunities to cover the comments made by the evaluation committee.

2.3 Once the observations were corrected, the author (s) has 10 working days from that date to cover the publication fee (fees are indicated on the checklist costs) once it is made reach the record I scanned via Try Us, proceed by the editorial team within 15 days to perform the spell checking style, layout and publication.

No. de Autores          Precio (pesos mexicanos)

         1                     $5,700
         2                     $10,200
         3                     $13,200
         4                     $17,200
         5                     $20,200

Once that reaches the scanned via electónico Mail tab, proceed by the editorial staff within 30 days to perform the spell checking style, layout and publication.

IMPORTANT NOTE

RICS reports that all works received had to cover in full the above mentioned methodological process, not for covering the amount requested for publication means that the author or authors are exempted from complying with the observations made to them about their work.

CHECKLIST FOR PREPARATION OF SHIPMENTS

1. The file is sent in Microsoft Word format.

2. The text adheres to the style and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Posting, which can be found in this section.

Self-archiving policy

The author can share, disseminate and disseminate their research published by the media (eg, academic social networks, repositories and portals) available on the web.
After the publication of the articles, the authors can make other types of independent or additional agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the version of the article published in this journal (publication in books or institutional repositories), the author is allowed that all the versions of your article are deposited in an institutional or other repository at the author's choice, however, provided that it is indicated with the respective reference that the work has been published for the first time in this journal.

Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior

- Identification of unethical behavior

 · The misconduct and unethical behavior can be identified and brought to the attention of the director and editor at any time, by anyone.

· The misconduct and unethical behavior may include, but not be limited to, examples as indicated above.

· The editor reporting such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence to initiate an investigation. All complaints will be taken with the seriousness it deserves and will be treated in the same way, until you reach a successful conclusion or decision.

- Research

· Evidence must be collected, while preventing the spread of any charge beyond those who need to know.

- Minor Offences

· A minor misconduct may be treated without more widely investigation. In any case, the author should have the opportunity to respond to the allegations.

- Serious Offenses

· With a serious misconduct we will notify the accused. The editor, in consultation with the publisher or society, when appropriate, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employees, either by examining the available information or through further consultations with a limited number of expert evidence.

- Results (in increasing order of severity, can be applied separately or together)

· Report to the author or reviewer where it seems that there is a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.

· Stronger author or reviewer letter covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behavior.

· The sending of an email with a formal notice detailing the misconduct.

· A formal, carefully written letter to author, department or agency funding.

· Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication of the magazine, along with formal notification to the author or department and indexing services and the readers of the publication notice.

· Report on the case and the result of a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.

ETHICAL STANDARDS

RICS agrees to abide and respect the rules of ethical behavior at all stages of the publishing process. We closely follow the industry association, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which establishes standards and provides guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements. Here is a summary of our key expectations for editors, reviewers and authors shown.

Responsibilities of Editors 

- To act in a balanced, objective and fair manner in the exercise of its expected functions, without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographic origin of the authors.

- Publishers must ensure that material submitted for publication remains confidential while it is examined.

- The editors will not reverse decisions to accept shipments unless there is serious conflict of originality with the submission of an article.

- The decisions of publishers to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on paper importance, originality, clarity, and relevance of the study of the powers of the magazine.

- To adopt and follow reasonable procedures for dealing with allegations of ethical or conflict character in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Company in its case. To give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. The documentation associated with such complaints should be maintained.

- Always be prepared to issue corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

- To contribute to the process of decision making, and to help improve the quality of work published by revising the manuscript objectively, at the right time.

- To maintain the confidentiality of all information provided by the publisher or the author.

- To be aware of potential conflicts of interest (financial relationships, institutional, or other collaboration between the critic and writer) and to alert the publisher of these, if necessary, withdraw their services for that manuscript.

Responsibilities of Authors

- To maintain an accurate record of the data associated with the submitted manuscript, and to provide or facilitate access to these data, upon reasonable request.

- To confirm / affirm that the manuscript was presented as not being considered or accepted for publication elsewhere.

- To confirm that all work on the manuscript submitted is original and recognize and cite the contents reproduced from other sources, for permission to reproduce any content from other sources.

- Declare any potential conflict of interest (for example, where the author has a competing interest (real or perceived) might be considered or seen as exerting undue influence on their functions at any time during the publishing process).

- To immediately notify the editor of the magazine or publisher if a significant error is identified on publication. Collaborate with the director and editor to publish an errata, addenda, error correction notice, or to retract the paper, when deemed necessary.

Evaluation format

The most important aspects that authors must review to evaluate their work are listed below.

Introduction

Contain the specific background and justification of the topic, set out in a clear and orderly manner; Supported with appropriate bibliographical references. 

Objectives and assumptions are clearly indicated. 

The largest number of references are of recent publication (10 years or less). 

The references refer specifically to the subject, eliminating those that in their judgment are superfluous or seem to simulate a false erudition. 

The bibliography does not appear as a list of tabs without a defined objective, or that "multiple quotes" are used to support a concept, as this only serves to appear a broad bibliographic review. As a general rule, a maximum of three citations should suffice to support an assertion. 

Do not use difficult or impossible references to see appointments, such as course notes, mimeographed information and technical reports, as they are not verifiable or accessible to most readers.

Materials and Methods

• Be described in a clear, brief, concise and orderly manner. 

• In each experiment or group of experiments, the applied treatments, the experimental design used and the environmental or general driving conditions should be clearly noted, in addition to the variables evaluated and the applied statistical analysis. 

• The description of the variables specifies the way in which each was measured, the instrument used (with brand, model, and company that manufactures it) and its units and symbols according to the International System of Units. The variables must be understood in a complete way, without having to read the text, with the inevitable exceptions. 

• Variables generated by transformations, combinations or relations of one or more measures directly, are also described with their equation and bibliographic reference, if applicable. 

• When using abbreviations for variables, these are defined in this chapter (and not the results), even if they are commonly used in some scientific discipline. 

• The materials and methods used are consistent with the objectives or hypotheses. The lack of correspondence between methods and objectives should be a serious reason for rejection. 

• The detailed description of a methodology is only made when it is an innovation. If necessary, it should be described with sufficient amplitude for another researcher to repeat or reproduce. 

• Do not contain common domain protocol descriptions. 

• Variance analysis tables of commonly used experimental designs are not presented.

Results and Discussion

They are presented in an orderly, clear and precise manner. 

The description of results do not repeat the information in tables or figures. 

Contain the discussion of the results, which is to offer an adequate interpretation, as well as to compare the most relevant results with those of other authors who have worked a similar theme in the same or other species. Failure to do so is sufficient reason to refuse a contribution. 

All data is legible. It is not uncommon to find letters or numbers that are too small, fuzzy or confusing. 

Both tables and figures are understandable without reading the text. 

Do not present tables or figures overloaded with information. There are excellent texts that instruct on how to present pictures and figures in a scientific article. 

The results are congruent with the objectives and methods described.

Conclusions

• Unsubstantiated speculations or deductions in the text are omitted. 

• The conclusions are not presented in numbered form. 

• Do not contain bibliographical references.

Literature Cited

• Use the standards according to the APA Sixth Edition Manual.

• Each reference contains all the information required in the Guide for authors, in the order stipulated and with the correct punctuation. It is very common that the number of pages of the books consulted is missing, that the order of the initials in the names of authors is altered, and that the title of the book or the name of the publisher is omitted in the case of chapters of books. 

• References appear in alphabetical order and chronological suborder. 

• The citations listed are referred to in the text, and vice versa, and that the names and years coincide every time they are cited.

Interoperability Protocol

The journal provides an OAI-PMH interface (Open Archives Initiative - Protocol for Metadata Harvesting) that allows its contents to be harvested by other distribution systems, such as digital repositories and harvesters.

Specifications:

- OAI-PMH Protocol Versión 2.0
- Dublin Core Metadata