Peer review policy
Selection Process
Submitted manuscripts will undergo an editorial process carried out in several stages. In the first stage, articles will be preliminarily reviewed by the editorial team under the supervision of the Editor in order to assess their thematic relevance, compliance with the formal requirements established in the author guidelines (citation style, length, and structure), and originality criteria, verified through specialized plagiarism-detection software.
Once this stage has been successfully completed, manuscripts will be sent for peer review to external academic reviewers through a double-blind peer review system, ensuring the anonymity of both authors and reviewers throughout the process. Each manuscript will be evaluated by two experts in the field, who may issue one of the following decisions: a) accept without revisions, b) accept with minor revisions, c) accept after major revisions, or d) reject.
In the event of disagreement between the two reviewers, the manuscript will be submitted to a third reviewer, whose decision will determine whether the article is accepted for publication. Decisions resulting from the academic evaluation process will be final and non-appealable in all cases.
The average response time for the editorial and peer review process ranges from two (2) to eight (8) months, depending on the availability of reviewers and the complexity of the revisions required.
Evaluation format
For the evaluation of all research, review and reflection articles, seven aspects will be taken into account and each evaluator will assign a score from 1 to 10 justified in qualitative terms. Additionally, they will indicate the limitations of the work and will communicate the corresponding information. The evaluation format is structured as follows:
|
Criterion |
QUANTITATIVE SCORE (1 to 10) |
QUALITATIVE VALUE |
|
Relevance to the topic |
|
|
|
Originality of the approach |
|
|
|
Theoretical, methodological and / or empirical contributions |
|
|
|
Logical and analytical rigor |
|
|
|
Relevant bibliographic review |
|
|
|
Appropriate and relevant use of information sources |
|
|
|
Clear and well-structured writing |
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS |
|
|
LIMITATIONS OF THE WORK (Briefly describe the limitations or shortcomings of the evaluated work) |
|
|
EVALUATOR CONCEPT (Issue a brief final concept, depending on the option you choose) |
|
|
Accept submission |
|
|
Publishable with modifications |
|
|
Forward for evaluation |
|
|
Unpublishable |
|