Evaluation Process
- Submission
Manuscripts must be submitted through the journal's platform, which uses the Open Journal Systems (OJS) software, a journal manager through which the papers are received and evaluated.
Registration is required. After that, it will be possible to enter the OJS to make the submission. The buttons for registration and login are at the top right of the web page.
- The review process
Papers are reviewed by two peer referees designated by the journal’s editorial board. The review process can take between one to six months, because the speed of the process is strongly dependent on the reviewers submitting their report on time.
2.1. Pre-review
Before the review, the editorial board can decide to reject a submission in the following cases:
i) The submission does not correspond to the journal’s subject matter.
ii) The submission does not comply with the minimum standards of quality in regards to writing and scientific rigour.
Papers that do not follow editorial guidelines will be returned to the authors for correction.
2.2. Review
Once the editorial team has verified that the above-mentioned standards have been met, the manuscript is reviewed by two peer experts in double-blind mode. Should any of the reviews fail to present reasonable and sufficient arguments for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript, the journal may then discard a review and request another one.
- On the results of the evaluation
The journal editor will decide, based on the evaluations of at least two external peers, between the following alternatives:
i) Contribution accepted without changes or with minimal adjustments.
ii) Acceptable contribution if minor changes are made.
iii) Acceptable contribution if major changes are made.
iv) Rejected contribution.
In case of acceptance or rejection, the author will receive a report with the result of the evaluation. The report is prepared according to the following criteria: relevance and novelty of the work in its respective field of study; consistency of the objectives, theoretical apparatus and methodology used; development of the argumentation; and conclusions reached. In case of discrepancy between reviewers, the text will be assigned to a third reviewer.
In case there are changes to be made in the article, the author must send the postulated work with the changes highlighted in a different font color, in addition to a detailed report of changes. Peer review may be requested again. If the author does not agree with any of the changes proposed in the evaluation report, he/she should justify his/her decision.
Once the work has been approved for publication, the author will be informed of the date of appearance of his/her article. It is expected that the article will appear in the next or subsequent issue of the journal, although these deadlines may eventually be extended according to the publication commitments that the journal has already acquired.
