Review Process
Articles submitted to the Kaylla must be original and undergo an external evaluation system (double-blind peer review) before being published.
Submissions are initially reviewed by the editors, who check that the manuscripts meet the minimum required quality standards. Selected manuscripts are then sent for double-blind peer review by external evaluators. The evaluation process is detailed below:
- Preliminary review
The editor or guest editors are the first filter in the review process. Their responsibility is to ensure submissions follow Kaylla's author guidelines and meet the journal’s minimum requirements (such as manuscript title in Spanish and English or Portuguese, references, length, keywords in Spanish, English, and Portuguese, and abstract in Spanish, English, and Portuguese, among others). This applies to book reviews and interviews, even though these in particular are only reviewed internally.
The preliminary review for submissions consists of two stages:
(i) Application of the iThenticate software and detection of authorship issues (plagiarism, citation malpractices, etc.).
(ii) Ensuring compliance with the journal’s minimum requirements, covering both content and format.
If an article presents serious formal deficiencies or does not align with the publication’s themes, the editor will reject it for formal or thematic reasons.
- Minimum Requirements
2.1. Minimum content requirements:
(i) The article’s thematic relevance within the call for papers it was submitted and to the journal’s focus and scope.
(ii) The article must be the result of research or research-creation and must be unpublished.
(iii) The article must have appropriate bibliographic references.
2.2. Minimum format requirements:
(i) The article should be approximately 5000 to 6000 words long.
(ii) Two documents must be submitted: a) Presentation and cover sheet, and b) The article itself (the description and structure of both are described in Section III: Structure and Format of “Author Guidelines”).
- Issuance of Preliminary Observations Report
3.1. If any suspected irregularity or violation of the mandatory ethical standards in Kaylla (plagiarism or other authorship issues) is detected during the preliminary review, the editors will issue a report of preliminary observations, to be sent to the author for explanation.
3.2. If the article is found not to be unpublished or lacks formal originality during the preliminary review, the same process as in point 3.1 will be followed.
- Response to Preliminary Observations
The author has seven days to submit their Response Report to the Preliminary Observations, which must be sent to the journal’s email with a copy to the editor.
- Academic Peer Review (Double-Blind System)
5.1. The manuscript is reviewed under a double-blind system by external evaluators, meaning the author and reviewers do not know each other’s identities.
5.2. Reviewers are to produce a report containing a critical and analytical assessment of the article, with arguments based on the academic quality standards required for publication.
5.3. The peer review process consists of six steps:
(i) Identification and assignment of reviewers.
(ii) Review process.
(iii) Issuance of the peer review report.
(iv) Addressing reviewer comments.
(v) New consultation with peer reviewers (optional, depending on each case).
(vi) Issuance of the second peer review report (only if the previous step was necessary).
5.4. When appropriate, the editor may seek the Editorial Board’s support or rely on editorial assistants.
- Reviewer Identification
6.1. The editor must identify and contact suitable scholars to review the article within a reasonable time frame.
6.2. Each article must be reviewed by two reviewers, selected for their subject relevance—the preferred choice is a reviewer whose research field aligns with the article’s topic.
- Assignment of Reviewers
Reviewers will be offered a certificate confirming their review once it has been satisfactorily completed for the journal. No remuneration is given to reviewers, their labor is voluntary.
7.1. The invitation will include the evaluation formulary approved by the journal for the reviewer to use.
7.2. If the reviewer accepts the invitation, the editor will immediately send the article and review formulary for review, ensuring no author identifier or reference allows the author to be recognized, such as citations, institution names, or bibliographic references, which must be replaced with “[omitted for peer review].”
The editor will also remove any author identifiers generated automatically by the word processors used to write the article.
- Review Process
The reviewer must maintain confidentiality regarding the article and the editorial process.
8.1. If the reviewer identifies any conflict of interest or cannot conduct the review for any reason, they must immediately inform the editor.
8.2. If the reviewer believes they lack the academic expertise to assess the article, they must immediately notify the editor.
8.3. The maximum deadline for issuing a review is 30 days. In special cases, the editor may request a faster response.
- Possible Outcomes of the Peer Review Process
9.1. The reviewer’s report must be completed using the journal’s evaluation template, and their possible recommendations are:
□ Accepted without changes
□ Accept with minor revisions
□ Require major revisions
□ Reject
9.2. The reviewer must briefly justify their decision, detailing observations and supporting them with corresponding analysis. Consequently, the report should not contain purely subjective judgments.
- Issuance of the Peer Review Report
10.1. Upon receiving the two required reports, or a tie-breaking reviewer’s report if requested, the editor will prepare the Peer Review Report, taking the reviewers’ opinions into account to assist with the editorial decision.
The editor will also ensure the reviewers’ identities remain confidential.
- Addressing Reviewer Comments
11.1. Upon receiving the Peer Review Report, the author will inform the journal if they agree with the observations and make the necessary changes.
11.2. The author will send the new version of the article to the journal, explicitly indicating where changes were made (using track changes, highlighter, or comments), as well as a letter in response to comments made in the report.
If an insurmountable disagreement arises, the editor will make the final decision, considering the arguments presented.
11.3. The maximum deadlines for the author to address reviewer comments are:
(i) For minor comments, the maximum deadline is 10 days.
(ii) For major comments, the maximum deadline is 21 days.
11.4. If the deadline to address comments is not met, it will be understood that the author has withdrawn, and the article will be considered withdrawn.
