Peer review process

In order to guarantee a good quality standard and also to ensure a fair curricular validation for the authors of the papers, they will be submitted to specialized and anonymous arbitration before publication.

The Editorial Committee makes a preliminary selection of the texts to be submitted for review. It may reject those papers that do not meet the minimum requirements for publication or suggest improvements to the authors for a second submission of their proposal.

The opinion of the texts is made by the Double anonymized peer review method under terms of confidentiality. The reviewers must be specialists in the research area of the work to be reviewed and are proposed by the Editorial Committee. In 95% of the cases, the reviewers are external to our publishing house.

The reviewers are previously registered in the platform with the role of reviewers. Once they have accepted the review of a paper, they can access it and the online report format according to the type of paper.

See report formats:

CLAUSES

  • In the event that two referees present results that differ from each other, the intervention of a third referee will be requested. The latter, without knowing the decisive nature of his or her opinion, will decide whether the article will be published or not.
  • An article will be considered accepted once the Editorial Committee approves the second version of the article made by the author based on the suggestions of the reviewers, who have previously issued a positive opinion.
  • Rejected contributions may be proposed by the authors for publication in subsequent issues with the pertinent corrections or improvements. Such contributions will be submitted for regular review by different referees.
  • The Editorial Committee will send for evaluation one paper per author at a time.

 

Peer review process description

1 ROUTE

  • Responsible: 
    • Author(s).
  • Requirement: 
    • Comply with the "Author's Guidelines”.
  • Reply:  
    • Acknowledgment of receipt e-mail automatically generated by OJS.
  • Explanation for clarification: 
    • Receipt of manuscripts in no way implies any commitment to publish.

 

2 FORMAT REVISION

  • Responsible:
    • Editorial Committee Members.
  • Revision: 
    • Focus and scope.
    • Compliance with guidelines.
    • Compliance with minimum quality criteria in terms of wording and content.
    • Level of originality, no more than 20%, an analysis of the iThenticate software report is performed.
  • Reply: Through OJS.
    • Rejected
  • Peer review submission
  • Timeo: up to 7 days.

 

3 PEER REVIEW

  • Responsible: 
  • Researchers of recognized national and international prestige (at least two for each manuscript).
  • Review:
    • Criteria of pertinence, timeliness and relevance, quality, clarity of expression and organization, and originality of information. 
    • Review form with open-ended questions
  • Recommendation: Through OJS to the Editorial Team.
    • Non-publishable
    • Publication with major revisions
    • Publication with minor revisions
  • Publication without review
  • Time: Each reviewer has up to 30 days per round to provide their recommendations.

4 REVIEW PROCESS

  • Responsible:
    • Editorial Committee.
  • Verdict:
    • Non- publishable
    • Publication with revisions
    • Publication without review
    • Peer recommendation evaluation.
    • Opinion taken by the Editorial Team based on peer evaluations.
  • Answer: Through OJS.
    • Sending the evaluations anonymously and the Editorial Committee's opinion.
  • Submitting corrections by authors:
    • Manuscript containing the requested corrections and changes.
    • Submission to peer reviewers (if applicable).
  • Review rounds:
    • A manuscript will undergo one or more rounds of review, until a decision is reached.
    • Non- publishable.
  • Publication without review
  • APC:
  • Time: Each reviewer has up to 30 days per round to provide their recommendations.
    • When minor revisions are recommended: The author has up to 15 days to make the requested corrections.
    • When major revisions are recommended: The author has up to 25 days to make the requested corrections.

5 Publishing Process

  • Responsible:
    • Editorial Director and technical team.
  • Layout:
    • Proofreading or Style Editing
    • Bibliographic adjustments
    • Layout or Typesetting
    • Galley proof is sent to author(s).
  • Publication: in OJS - Web Page
    • Formats: PDF, HTML.
  • Time: The manuscript will be published up to 10 days after the acceptance date.

The timing of the editorial process:

  • 4 to 7 days for first response from section editor or peer review.
  • 20 to 30 days editor's responses to peer reviewers' comments.
  • 10 to 25 days corrections on peer reviewers' comments (AUTHORS).
  • 5 to 7 days for review of corrections made by authors.
  • 5 to 10 days after approval, publication of the article on the journal's site.

The average time for acceptance is 39 days (the time can be shorter if the authors make the corrections in less time) and 49 days for publication.

The timeframes may vary depending on the number of revision rounds. A manuscript will undergo one or multiple rounds of review until a decision is reached (Not publishable or Publication without review). Each revision round may take up to 55 days, including corrections.