Evaluation Guidelines and Processes

 EVALUATION GUIDELINES

  1. The articles are submitted to an anonymous (double-blind) evaluation by two specialists in the subject, either national or international, external to the Department and Faculty of Social Sciences of the Pontifical Catholic University of Perú. In case of discrepancy, a third party will decide.
  2. The reviews are submitted to an anonymous (blind) evaluation by a specialist in the corresponding field.
  3. Proposals for translations of articles already published will be submitted for evaluation by the journal’s editorial committee.
  4. The articles will be evaluated according to the following criteria: relevance, originality and quality of the contributions to the empirical and theoretical knowledge, actuality and pertinence of the subject and the way it is addressed, quality and relevance of bibliographic references, clarity and coherence, adequate internal organization and elaboration of abstracts and, finally, relevance of the title.
  5. Reviews will be selected based on their quality, originality, and on the present day relevance of their evaluation of the limitations and contributions of the work reviewed, as well as on their internal coherence.
  6. As mentioned earlier, the journal’s Direction team may reject texts, even before the evaluation process, if they consider that they do not comply with the minimum standards of quality, writing or relevance.

EVALUATION PROCESSES

First of all, an initial selection is made by the Editorial Teams of Anthropologica. Next, selected proposals are submitted to double-blind arbitration, in the case of articles, and simple blind arbitration, in the case of reviews, by national and international peers on the subject, external to the Department and Faculty of Social Sciences of the Pontifical Catholic University of Perú. Translations and testimonies are evaluated by the journal’s Editorial Committee.

The first review checks if the subject proposed is relevant to the journal and to the call for papers of the present issue. It also guarantees a minimum of quality and compliance with the formal aspects of the articles (extension, abstract, methodology description, ethical considerations, and others) so that it conforms to the Editorial Policy and Submission Guidelines proposed by the journal.

The second review is in accordance with the criteria established by the Evaluation Guide for articles, reviews, or translations, and by the expert judgement of the evaluators. In case of disagreement between article evaluators, a third expert is consulted to decide about the quality and/or relevance of the publication.

Download evaluation forms for articles, translations and bibliographic reviews.