Peer-review Policies

All research articles published in the journal are subjected to a rigorous double-blind peer review process based on the initial selection of the editor, the anonymous arbitration of external reviewers of expertise in their particular field and the subsequent revisions of the article’s own author(s) when needed.

The editors are responsible for the correct reception of the manuscripts and for verifying compliance with the formal elements specified in the Submissions and Guidelines for Authors section. If the submission does not meet the basic formal requirements, it will be returned for amendment. Once the formal aspects have been corrected (summary/abstract, keywords, table of contents, metadata of the authors, anonymization, etc.), the editors will make a decision on accepting the submission to be moved to the peer-review process or rejecting the submission. This process will be carried out within a week from the reception of the work.

In case of preliminary acceptation, the editors will assign the article to a minimum of two specialists who will review the article and provide recommendations to improve it, as well as give their verdict on the acceptance or rejection of the article. A definitive publication will require the positive evaluation of both. If such is not the case, the article will be subjected to a third evaluation. The result will lead to either the acceptance of the work, the need to introduce corrections to re-evaluate the potential acceptance of the work, or to its final rejection. The peer-review process will take place within a maximum period of two months. The final decision will be communicated to the person concerned within a week.

In the event that the result of the evaluation is "Introduce corrections and resend for evaluation", the editors requests the pertinent modifications to the author. The authors will have one month to make the pertinent corrections and re-send the final version of their work to the journal. The editors will make a final decision within a week. Thus, the publication decision must be made within a maximum of four months.

The double-blind peer review process ensures that the assigned reviewers have no knowledge about the identity of the author, just as authors have no knowledge about who is reviewing their work. Notwithstanding, journals are encouraged to publish the list of external reviewers that have collaborated with it the two preceding years.

All reviewers must follow the following ethical principles:

• They must only accept to review manuscripts about subjects in which they are sufficiently experienced, pledging to complete the revision in the accorded period.
• They must be as objective and constructive in their review as possible, refraining from making personal comments that may be defamatory or insulting.
• They must indicate any potential conflict of interest, including any type of relationship with the author(s) that may bias their assessment.
• They must judge the author(s) by their merits, regardless of ethnicity, religion, nationality, sex, seniority or institutional affiliation.
• They must be confidential concerning the peer review process.
• They must provide a review report constructive, thorough, verified and adequately substantial.
• They must notify the journal’s editor concerning similarities between the article in consideration and any published work or manuscript sent for consideration known to them.

The Editorial Board, taking into consideration the reports of the external reviewers, will decide whether to finally publish or reject an article and will always notify their decision to its author(s).

Download the Review Form.