About the Journal

Focus and Scope

The DYNA journal, to disseminate engineering research, covers all disciplines within the broad scope of Engineering and Technology (OECD). Dyna is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes regular research papers, case studies, short communications, and reviews.

The DYNA journal is published quarterly and provides immediate open access to its content under the principle of making research freely available to the public, which favors a greater global knowledge exchange.

Articles with the following characteristics will NOT be considered for publication:

Previously published in another journal or scientific/informative magazine.
Translations of previously published works.
Manuscripts using material protected by intellectual property rights.
States of the art of engineering subjects that do not contribute to innovation in the field of knowledge.
Manuscripts that come from class notes.
Manuscripts that are offensive to individuals, research groups, products, and/or other services.

Authors do not pay Article Processing Charges (APC) at any time. All costs for the submission and review processes, as well as other publishing functions, are free.

To promote international visibility and citation Dyna's policy gives preference to publishing articles in English. Therefore, the Editorial Committee encourages authors to submit their articles in that language. To facilitate a proper peer-reviewing of the article; it is essential that it is submitted in grammatically correct English.

Publication frequency

The DYNA journal is published quarterly, with publications in March, June, September, and December.

The call for articles for possible publication is permanent.

Submission Process

Any submitted article must be accompanied by a Cover Letter, requesting its publication in the journal and indicating that all authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to DYNA. Authors must also confirm that neither the manuscript nor any parts of its content are currently under consideration or published in another journal.

During the submission process, authors must suggest four potential reviewers with the appropriate expertise to review the manuscript. When suggesting potential reviewers for a submitted manuscript, authors should not suggest reviewers who have a personal or professional connection to the authors or co-authors if the relationship might bias the judgment of the manuscript. Authors may suggest reviewers from among the authors that they frequently cite in their papers.

Submission to this journal proceeds totally online. Authors must register as users on the Open Journal System (OJS) (OJS) website and submit their articles through that platform.

Authors are requested to structure their articles according to the journal's guidelines, which are found in the (Article Submission Template). This document includes extensions, citation rules, etc. When uploading the manuscript, it should be in Microsoft Word® (NOT .zip or another compressed file) suitable for blind review (without informing the authors).

Once the Article, Cover Letter, and Registration Form have been duly submitted through the OJS, the system will send an acknowledgment of receipt to the author registered on it. All communication regarding the article and the supplementary material process will be made through the registered email of the main author of the article.

If the article is accepted for publication, the authors must read carefully and completely the document Transfer of Property Rights to DYNA, which must be signed by all the authors and delivered at the time of approving the final version for publication. Once the article has been accepted for publication, the authors must give their consent to serve as reviewers of other articles in their area of knowledge, if required.

Ethical Guidelines

The publication of a scientific article is an essential part of the dissemination of knowledge. Therefore, all persons engaged in the publication of scientific and engineering research, specifically, editors, authors, and manuscript reviewers must know and follow a series of ethical guidelines to guarantee the successful development of the the knowledge dissemination process.

Dyna is committed to:

Promote accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusivity in all aspects of the publication.
Maintain an accurate and transparent academic record, including publishing corrections and retractions when necessary.
Encouraging our authors, editors, and peer reviewers to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website and follow COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

As mentioned before, the value of academic publishing relies on everyone involved behaving ethically. The following points are only intended to give a broad overview and are not exhaustive.

Ethical obligations of authors

An author is a person who has made a significant scientific contribution to the work reported. It is necessary to ensure that all individuals credited as authors participated in the actual authorship of the work and that all who participated are credited and have given consent for publication. The order of the author list must be a joint decision of the co-authors, and all of them share responsibility and accountability for the results.
Authors must disclose to the editor and readers of the journal any relevant actual or potential conflicts of interest of any of the authors that might be associated with the publication of the results contained in the manuscript at the time of submission (this would include funding assistance).
Authors are obligated to present an accurate and complete account of the research performed and identify the source of all information quoted or offered except that which is common knowledge. Plagiarism is not acceptable. Dyna adheres to the U.S. National Science Foundation’s definition of plagiarism as “the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit”. The editorial team will verify the originality of the text for cases of improper citation or possible plagiarism using the Turnitin service (www.turnitin.com).
Authors must adhere to all research ethics guidelines of their discipline, particularly where human or animal subjects are involved.
Authors should not engage in any form of overlapping publication, which includes the following cases: self-plagiarism or duplicate publication (unacceptably close replication of the author’s own previously published text or results without acknowledgment of the source), inflated or meal-extended publication (a new publication obtained by adding new data or cases but with similar conclusions of the previous publication), salami publication or fragmentation (the research results are divided as many low-quality manuscripts as possible with the aim of maximizing the total number of publications), and redundant publication (several publications are based on the same data). Note that publishing the same research in different languages is a form of duplicate publication because the contributions are the same.
Authors should not engage in any form of fraud which refers to the presentation of false data or conclusions that were not obtained through a rigorous research process.
Authors are in the obligation to cooperate with the journal in the case of a retraction process. Retraction is an integral part of the scientific communication system and constitutes a public instrument to register or correct problems of a published article or communicate its cancellation.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

In agreement with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Journals must provide transparent policies for peer review, and reviewers must conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner. For that reason, reviewers must:

Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor.
Declare all potential competing or conflicting interests that could affect the impartiality of their reviewing and decline to review where appropriate. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious in nature.
Being responsible for providing a review in a timely fashion based on the journal’s policy for review. This includes deciding to review the manuscript and completing the review within the requested time frame.
Maintain the review process confidentially and do not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review during or after the peer-review process. They must also refrain from using information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage.
Explain and support their judgments adequately, so editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments.
Be objective, fair, impartial, and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile to authors. They must not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.

Ethical obligations of the editor(s)

Editors must maintain and promote consistent ethical policies for their journals and oversee and act to enforce those policies as needed to be fair and consistent.
Editors have the responsibility to prudently reject manuscripts without external review. Such rejections may be based on the failure of the manuscript to fit the scope of the journal, to be of current or sufficiently broad interest, to provide adequate depth of content, to be written in acceptable English, or other reasons.
Editors must have an active role in the case of retraction or concern manifestation of published articles. Dyna applies the procedures recommended by SciELO when articles and other types of documents published by journals may contain inaccuracies that have not been detected in the evaluation and editorial process and are revealed after publication.

Open Access Policy

The DYNA journal publishes research articles through the Open Journal Systems (OJS), following the principle of free access to the scientific community and the general public, which has a positive impact on the quality of research results and is also a factor that guarantees equity. In other words, all content is freely available chargeless to the user or their institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles or use them for any other lawful purpose without asking prior permission of the publisher or author. Due to the system's characteristics, this tool allows better control of the publication process, thus facilitating communication and diffusion among all involved.

Digital Preservation Policy

The DYNA journal preserves its digital files (PDF) through cloud storage to preserve them in case of any inconvenience or failure in the OJS system. In addition, the LOCKSS system has been configured as a medium to create an archive that can be distributed among libraries or digital repositories, which creates a backup that allows harvesting of the articles in case their restoration is necessary.

Estadistics (Google Analytics - Users) (Visits)

Cooperation with academic and investigative projects for the communication and dissemination of knowledge.

The Facultad de Minas comprises 12 engineering programs as well as 27 postgraduate degree programs, at Specialization, Master, and Doctorate levels. It also enjoys an extensive interinstitutional with national and international universities and institutions to support, encourage and promote research, innovation, and technological development in engineering. These allow us to keep in contact with different projects and investigative groups undertaken in the engineering field. In this way, DYNA serves as a medium for the dissemination of information about the constant investigation activity by publishing such knowledge to the national and international communities through the Journal’s editions, which demonstrate the interaction between academia, investigation, and society.

Sources of Support

Journal History

DYNA Journal was born in 1933 as an idea by a group of students and professors of the Facultad de Minas. The environment of that time was optimal for the Journal’s inception, due to the Escuela Nacional de Minas' leading role in Colombia's entrepreneurial development. The Journal's first director was a student, Joaquín Vallejo Arbeláez, who defined the Journal's main objective as: "Our goal is to stoke the fire which must burn in every student's soul and to disperse the carbonated atmosphere of utilitarianism and form a general ideology which will govern all the men’s aspirations, and particularly those of the engineer".

Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is an important process within the scientific publication that allows to guarantee to a great extent the quality and relevance of the manuscripts submitted for publication. For this reason, it should be done with utmost care and responsibility.

Duties of reviewers:

Contribution to the editorial decision
Celerity
Confidentiality
Objectivity
Disclosure of conflicts of interest

The evaluation process for articles submitted to the DYNA Journal is "double-blind" assigning peer reviewers who are specialists of recognized competence in the subject, in which both reviewers and authors are unaware of their identities. Peer reviewers examine the articles for quality, originality, and relevance and make technical judgments on their possible publication.

After verifying that the subject of the submitted article is within the area of expertise, the request is sent to the reviewers, and they must confirm whether they accept or decline this responsibility. In this way, the journal can schedule the expected receipt of the review results, or if the reviewer declines the article can be assigned to another reviewer. Once accepted, the reviewer has one month from the receipt of the article to submit their evaluation of the manuscript in order not to lengthen the selection process too much.

Reviewers must do their job impartially and confidentially and are free to notify any possible conflicts of interest to complete the evaluation, whether the conflict of interest in reviewing the assigned article is academic, work-related, or personal concerning the article they were asked to evaluate.

To carry out the evaluation, the peer reviewers have a form at their disposal that is delivered with the article (Article Evaluation Format) to facilitate their reading and response on the relevance and possible publication of the article. With the assistance of the evaluation form, the peer reviewers can submit their opinion according to one of the following alternatives:

Recommends the article as submitted.
The article can be accepted after minor revisions described in the written evaluation report.
The article can be accepted after major revisions described in the written evaluation report.
The article is not accepted for publication.

Once the peer review results are received, the journal's Editorial Committee analyzes the responses and, considering the comments of the peer reviewers and the associate editor for the English language makes decisions on the publication of the article.

The Editorial Committee of the DYNA Journal clarifies that not all the evaluation results of an article must coincide in terms of recommendations; therefore, it is the Editorial Board who, based on all the observations, makes the final decision on whether or not to publish the article.

The journal favors the "double-blind" evaluation system, mainly to guarantee impartiality in the evaluations, and in no case will the identity of the authors or the evaluators be revealed; therefore, in those cases where it is considered necessary, the Editorial Committee modifies the evaluation reports to safeguard the identities of the peers.

Advice for facilitating peer reviews

The DYNA Journal summarizes below some issues to keep in mind, to help peer reviewers to carry out their evaluation in a more agile and adequate manner:

The title of the must be concise, short, and descriptive of the research or topic to be presented in the text.
The Abstract and Resumen must be consistent in their translation from one language to another; they must clearly describe the study addressed, methods and materials, results, and conclusions.
DYNA expects the articles to be published to be of interest and validity for the scientific community in the engineering area; therefore, it is recommended that the main aspect of the evaluated article should be highlighted in the evaluation.
For the Journal it is important to verify the originality and degree of innovation of the text to be evaluated, in other words, it is recommended to confirm if the article is an original version and not a repetition or superficial modification of works already published with similar methods and results. A different case is if the article belongs to a continuation of research, in which the new material presented does not coincide in more than 50% with those previously published.
Regarding the presented methodology, it is expected that its description be logical and detailed so that it will be easily understandable to any reader; it is also relevant that the measurements and results obtained be sufficient and clear in the results expressed in the content.
In general, the article's organization should be clear, concise, and reasonable. The language used in the text, which have to be carefully well-written (especially in the articles in English), should be clear and easily understood even by neophytes on the subject. Assumptions of common terms in a specific area should be avoided, and abbreviations and acronyms should be clearly defined the first time they appear in the text.
Verify that the system of units used in the text is the internationally used one; also, in the case of the use of equations and calculations, it is desirable to verify these results.
Regarding images and tables, it should be verified if they are necessary for the presentation of the text, if they describe what they are presenting, and if they are correctly referenced in the text.
Conclusions must be well-structured, and in case they can be improved with new suggestions, it is very pertinent that the evaluator indicates it.

Regarding the reviewers' response or final concept:

The evaluation results will be delivered according to one of the following alternatives:

Recommends publication of the article as submitted: There are no suggestions or modifications to the article, and it can be published as submitted. The Editorial Committee will review aspects of form and presentation according to the indications of the Article Submission Format so that the authors hand in their final version.
The article can be accepted after minor revisions, described in the review's written report: The peer reviewers deliver small suggestions and recommendations, which, if accepted by the authors, the Editorial Committee will verify the new corrected version and the aspects of form and presentation to decide on the publication of the article.
The article can be accepted after major revisions described in the evaluation written report: The article is not recommended for publication without first making the major corrections delivered by the peers, which must be analyzed and carried out by the authors; the final corrected version will be sent again to the peers to verify compliance with the suggestions and that they issue their final response.
An additional reviewer must evaluate the article before it is accepted: When the initial peer reviews the article but also suggests that it should be reviewed by another peer with a more rigorous knowledge of the subject of the manuscript.
The article is not accepted for publication: Based on the evaluation responses, the Editorial Committee decides not to accept the article for publication. This decision is final.