Peer review process

Peer Review Process

The reception of an article does not imply its acceptance to be published

Postulation and reception of the article: This stage begins with the submission of the article by the author through the OJS (Open Journal Systems) platform. The author must send the article in Word format, always trying to avoid including the author´s data and reference. Once the article is postulated, the reception of the article and the acknowledgment of receipt are made automatically.

Previous Editorial Review: The editors within a maximum period of 72 hours from reception will evaluate the submitted articles and determine if they are within the scope of the journal. In this phase, a review is made of the editorial quality and the contribution to the knowledge of the postulated article. Its publication standard of the American Psychological Association (APA). If the submitted article does not meet the established editorial criteria, the author will be notified of the editorial decision; if, on the contrary, the article passes the prior review stage, it is analyzed using the Ithenticate anti-plagiarism software and later goes on to review by external peers. magazine.

Peer Review: This evaluation is carried out under the double-blind method, that is, the article will be sent in complete anonymity. At this stage, two external expert reviewers are appointed on the subject, so that, based on editorial policies, and considering an evaluation format, they analyze the assigned article. The reviewers will have a period of fifteen (15) days to carry out their respective review. If the article was not accepted by the peers, it is communicated in a subtle way to the main author. If the article was accepted with some suggestions, the anonymous evaluation is sent to the author to make the respective adjustments.

Editorial Review (after peers): The editor will verify in detail that the authors have made the corrections suggested by the peers.

Style review: Once the editor has verified that the corrections have been made, they will proceed to send the style correction. At this stage, the proofreader will take care of the writing and style aspects of the text.

Translation: After style correction, the article is sent to a second language expert to make the respective translation of the abstract and keywords.

Layout (Edition): This stage seeks to guarantee the aesthetic appearance of the article by adapting the spaces, the typography, and the colors.

Final editor review: Final approval is granted by the editor.

Publication: the articles are in the final stage of the process, ready to be published.

Review Form:

1. Overall assessment of the quality of work

Once you have reviewed the article, how do you consider the quality of the work presented?

2. Assessment of originality and relevance (regarding the scientific information contained in the article: -new and valuable, -results already known, - irrelevant)

Does the work present an innovative, original, relevant and highly scientific approach?

3. Are the conclusions consistent and justified with the data or with the thesis (s) presented in the article?

4. Does the title reflect the content of the article?

5. Does the abstract provide enough information about the content of the article?

The abstract should not exceed 250 words and should be presented in Spanish and English.

6. Are the keywords adequate in terms of quantity, clarity and relevance?

One of the recommendations you can make to the author in the final section is to check that the key words appear in the UNESCO Thesaurus vocabulary.

7. Is the article presented in a clear, coherent and well-organized manner according to the presentation rules required by the Editorial Policy of the journal?

8. References

Are the (bibliographic) references sufficient, up-to-date and pertinent to the topic covered in the article?

 

Check that the citations correspond to the works cited.

9. Is the general topic, issue or problem immediately and clearly identified?

10. Methodology

11. Are the data, materials, sources, etc., provided sufficient to be able to replicate the study?

12. Is there clarity and relevance in the presentation of the method, participants, materials or instruments and procedure?

13. Quantitative valuation

Mark with the number that best represents the quantitative evaluation for this item with the following scale:

 

5 Excellent 4 Good 3 Fair 2 Poor 1 Very poor

14. Qualitative Assessment

Indicate the most appropriate recommendation that you would make to the Editor of the journal regarding the merit of publication of this article:

15. Comments to the author

We kindly ask that your final decision be accompanied by a brief report of two or three paragraphs explaining the reasons why you recommend the publication or non-publication of the work. In the event that the recommendation is "Publication with modifications", we ask that you also specify which modifications are proposed. You can use all the space you need for this