Peer review

To guarantee a good quality standard and also ensure a fair curricular validation for the article authors, these will be submitted to specialized and anonymous arbitration before publication.

The Editorial Committee makes the prior selection of the texts that will be submitted for review. This committee can and will reject those works that do not meet the minimum publication requirements or suggest improvements to the authors so that they make a second submission of their proposal.

The dictum for text approval is carried out by the Double anonymized peer review method under terms of confidentiality. The reviewers must be specialists in the research field of ​​the work to review and are proposed by the Editorial Committee. In 95% of the cases, the reviewers are external to our editorial. The time assigned to each reviewer is six weeks.

The reviewers are previously registered on the platform with the role of reviewers. Once they have accepted the revision of work, they can access it and the online acceptance format according to the type of work.

 

See acceptance formats:

 

 

CLAUSES

  • If 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 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 that the author makes based on the suggestions of the evaluators, who have previously issued a positive opinion.
  • Rejected collaborations may be proposed by the authors for publication in subsequent issues with the pertinent corrections or improvements. Said collaborations will be submitted to a regular opinion with different referees.
  • The Editorial Committee will send one work per author at a time for evaluation.