Standards for evaluators
Standards for evaluators
General aspects:
1. A first review is carried out by the editorial director in conjunction with the editorial committee, with the intention of determining whether the article submitted complies with the editorial standards and is within the thematic areas of interest for publication in the journal, applying in this instance the plagiarism detection by means of specialised software. In the event that the article submitted does not comply with the above, it will be returned to the author (either for refusal before refereeing, corrections before refereeing or to recommend another journal depending on the subject matter).
2. The editorial process from receipt to the refereeing verdict to the author(s) by the journal will take a maximum of 10 weeks, provided that there are no external conditions that may affect the indicated periodicity, for which the author(s) will be informed in a timely manner about the novelty.
All manuscripts will be reviewed anonymously. Authors should suggest three possible reviewers they consider suitable to evaluate their work (the Journal is not obliged to send them for arbitration), clearly indicating their name and e-mail address. Likewise, authors may indicate any person who, for different reasons, they do not wish to see involved in the review process of their work.
Evaluation procedure:
4. The reviewers will have a period of 30 continuous days, from the receipt of the article, to send the evaluation report to the Director - Editor. The Director - Editor will send this report to the author within a maximum period of 5 continuous days.
5. The work of the reviewers is strictly confidential. The journal is not responsible for the performance of the reviewers, who are completely autonomous.
6. For the arbitration of articles, peer review will be anonymous or double-blind; where the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors of the articles, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
7. Originality, relevance, style and contributions to the field will be evaluated.
8. The evaluators will use the instrument proposed by the journal for the evaluation of the article.
9. Articles are refereed and classified in the following categories: Approved, Approved with modifications and Not Approved.
10. Anything not covered by the editorial guidelines will be at the discretion of the Editorial Committee.
Peer review process
- Articles will be peer-reviewed anonymously, where the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors of the articles, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
Peer review process
1. All proposals for publication must be submitted through the Open Journal System (OJS), in order to guarantee an electronic and auditable record of the interactions between the journal and the authors.
2. The editorial process begins with the reception of the article through the Open Journal System (OJS), in the first instance an editorial audit is carried out, when this is favourable, the process of sending to external evaluators begins, it is projected that from this stage until the verdict of arbitration, will be a maximum of 10 weeks, provided that there are no external conditions that may affect the periodicity indicated, for which, the author or authors will be informed in a timely manner, about the novelty.
All proposals for publication will be subject to an editorial audit process in order to determine whether the topic is of interest to the Journal in terms of its scope and objective, as well as full compliance with the rules of authorship.
4. If the submitted topic is of interest, but the manuscript does not fully comply with the author guidelines, it will be returned with the appropriate observations in order to rectify the situation, the article must be resubmitted through the Open Journal System (OJS).
5. Once the editorial audit has been approved, the article is sent to the referees, under the double-blind peer-review system, which guarantees that there is no conflict between the parties, prioritising the transparency and impartiality of the process.
6. An evaluation instrument will be used for this purpose, which must be filled out by the referees and sent to the journal for the verdict. If there is a discrepancy in the result, the assessment of a third reviewer will be requested in order to achieve uniformity of criteria, with the majority decision prevailing.
7. When the final verdict is obtained, the decision will be communicated to the author(s) as follows: a) Accepted: It will undergo grammatical revision, layout and publication in the next available issue. b) Accepted with observations: The authors will be notified of the modifications to be made (maximum 15 continuous days to make the observations and send them back to the journal; non-compliance with this rule implies that the author or authors renounce the publication of the article). Once they have complied, the article will proceed to grammatical revision, layout and publication in the next available issue. c) Not accepted or approved: The authors will be notified of the reason for rejection according to the verdict of the juries.
8. The refereeing decision is final and cannot be appealed by the author(s).
9. Once the article has been approved, the editorial team will review the manuscript again to check for possible grammatical or editorial errors. If there are no problems at this point, the article will be sent for layout and production. If not, the authors will be notified of the observations to be considered.
10. The grammatical revision, which will be the responsibility of the author(s), must be carried out within a maximum of 8 continuous days, during which time the article must be returned to the journal for verification. Failure to comply with this rule implies that the author or authors renounce the publication of the article.
11. The main criteria to be evaluated in the article are: Originality, contribution to the state of the art, methodological rigour, quality of results and discussion, conclusion, writing, semantic coherence.
12. In order to promote greater reliability in the evaluation, the referees will preferably be from different countries and institutions, promoting greater diversity of opinion.
13. Situations that arise and are not contemplated in the evaluation process will be submitted to the consideration of the journal's editorial and scientific committee, taking as a reference the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
