Peer Review Process
The initial evaluation of submissions is carried out by the Editorial Board, which determines their relevance in accordance with the journal’s guidelines and editorial policy. In a second stage, all manuscripts are subjected to an anonymous peer review process conducted by external academic reviewers, both national and international, under a double-blind peer review system. This means that neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identity or institutional affiliation. To ensure anonymity during the review process, authors’ names must not appear in the manuscript.
In the case of preprint submissions, since anonymity can no longer be ensured, the review will be conducted under a single-blind model. Authors may choose the procedure to be followed for their manuscript and the stage at which they prefer to make it publicly available.
The review process is not open, that is, it does not involve interaction between reviewers and the general readership. Each manuscript is evaluated by two external reviewers; in the event of conflicting evaluations, a third reviewer will be consulted. Reviewers are given up to six (6) months to complete their reports.
In addition, reviewers ensure compliance with the ethical standards of the editorial process. For this reason, the process may involve up to two rounds of revision before a final decision of acceptance or rejection is reached. The dates of receipt and acceptance will be indicated in the published articles. The entire process may take up to six (6) months from the submission of the initial manuscript. Please note that manuscripts may not be accepted for publication if authors do not adequately address the reviewers’ comments within the two revision rounds.
The Editors, with the advice of the Scientific Committee, selects manuscripts on the basis of the reviewers’ reports, according to the following criteria: originality and relevance of the topic or research problem; relevance to current research in the field; rigor in argumentation and analysis; precision in the use of concepts and methods; discussion of the theoretical implications of the problem under study; use of up-to-date general bibliography; linguistic accuracy, organization, and formal presentation of the text; clarity and concision of exposition; originality (unpublished status); and compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines.
The Editors reserves the right to accept or reject manuscripts submitted for peer review, or to make acceptance conditional upon the incorporation of revisions. Accepted articles will be published in the issue deemed appropriate by the Editorial Board.
Authors will be kept informed about the status of their manuscript, as well as its final acceptance or rejection.
Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts in accordance with the journal’s guidelines and through its online review form. This includes the following evaluation criteria:
- Originality of the research article
- Relevance of the topic to the specific field of study and to the discipline as a whole
- Adequacy of the theoretical framework
- Clarity of the article’s objectives
- Methodology
- Clarity of results and their consistency with the stated objectives
- Expository and formal aspects in accordance with the guidelines for a scientific article
Reviewers may make one of the following recommendations:
- Accept without revisions
- Accept subject to revisions
- Return to the author for revision and resubmission
- Reject for one or more of the following reasons: •Lack of originality, •Overly preliminary results, •Unclear presentation, •Incomplete results
The reviewers’ reports enable the Editors to make a final decision regarding the publication of the manuscript and provide valuable feedback to help authors improve and strengthen their work through constructive criticism.
