Articles, essays, bibliographic reviews, or critiques submitted must be original and undergo a double-blind peer review system before publication.

Manuscripts are initially reviewed by the thematic editor, who verifies that the submissions meet the minimum quality criteria. Selected manuscripts then undergo a double-blind peer review process by external reviewers. The evaluation process is detailed below:

 

1. Preliminary Manuscript Review

The journal's editor-in-chief serves as the initial filter in the review process. They will determine whether the received manuscript (article, essay, bibliographic review, or critique) constitutes a scientific contribution to the journal's field and aligns with the focus and scope of Conexión.

In the second stage, it will be verified whether the manuscript complies with Conexión author guidelines and the minimum requirements set by the journal (title, abstract, and keywords of the manuscript in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, bibliographic references, length, among others). Additionally, the editor-in-chief will ensure that the authors submit the sworn statement of originality for the article.

The preliminary review of the submitted article consists of two stages:

1. Application of plagiarism and similarity detection software.
2. Ensuring compliance with the minimum requirements set by the journal, which encompasses both substantive and formatting aspects.

If the manuscript is found to have plagiarism or self-plagiarism issues or does not align with the publication's themes, the Editorial Board will formally or thematically dismiss the work without the possibility of reconsideration.

 

2. About Minimum Requirements

2.1. Manuscripts will be immediately rejected if:

1. The topic of the article is unrelated to the focus and scope and/or does not constitute an original contribution to the scientific domain of Conexión.
2. It involves plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

 

3. Editorial Decision

3.1. Authors who submitted their manuscripts will receive a report with the journal's editorial   decision:

1. Articles that comply correctly with the journal's standards proceed to the peer review stage.
2. Articles that do not meet the requirements, ethical standards, and/or content criteria of the journal will be rejected.

• Articles that partially meet the standards will be returned to the authors for corrections within a period of 7 days. Afterward, they must resubmit the corrected version to initiate the evaluation process.

 

4. Peer-review Process (Double-Blind System)

4.1. The manuscript review is conducted under the double-blind system by external reviewers, wherein the author and reviewer are unaware of each other's identities.

4.2. The reviewers' role is to provide a critical and analytical assessment of the article.

4.3. Peer Review Process Stages:

Stages
Preliminary Review	Depending on the director's verdict, who will assess the quality and theme of the article*. Authors must submit two versions: one complete (with author information) and another anonymized for blind peer review. *Likewise, they will be asked for the declaration of authorship and the CRediT Taxonomy Formulary .
Reviewer identification and invitation	The editorial team searches for reviewers as soon as the text is approved to proceed to peer review, depending on the topic of the manuscript. Once they accept, they will receive an invitation through the OJS platform and/or email with the necessary instructions for arbitration.
Double-blind peer review	Reviewers can find a review formulary for the assigned manuscript on the journal's OJS platform. This review form is a requirement to validate the verdict, and an example can be viewed at this link. Submitting comments on the article is optional. The ratings are as follows: 'Accept for publication,' 'Accept, subject to minor revisions,' 'Require major revisions,' and 'Reject.' The review process will take place through the OJS platform, so reviewers must sign up on the journal's website. Reviewers will be offered the issuance of a certificate accrediting their work as peer reviewers once it is carried out to the satisfaction of the journal.
Author revisions	Authors must submit the revised article along with a corrections sheet (authors can decide whether or not to consider the received suggestions; in case a suggested change is not made, it should be adequately justified). The deadline depends on the reviewers' verdict. In case of observations, authors will have a period of 7 to 30 days to submit a new version of their manuscript. The deadlines are indicative. Once the deadline is met, the editorial team will communicate with the authors to confirm their willingness to continue with the publication process.
Revisions review	The director or guest editor (depending on the section to which each manuscript is submitted) will review the corrected version of the manuscripts and approve their progression to the editing phase.