Peer evaluation process

The proposal evaluation process is conducted confidentially under a double-blind peer review system, following an initial evaluation by the Technical/Editorial Committee.

70% of reviewers will be external and 30% will be from within the institution.

Reviewers have 15 calendar days to accept the submission and 20 calendar days to submit their comments on the manuscript sent by the editor. Articles that pass the editorial review will be sent to expert academics in the same disciplinary and thematic area as the submitted text. These academics will be selected from a pool of reviewers—comprised of specialists from national and international institutions—to provide feedback on the relevance and academic quality of the proposed text and determine its feasibility for publication.
The reviewers will be responsible for reviewing and analyzing the academic, theoretical, and methodological relevance of each and every article assigned to them. They will be responsible for reviewing the presence and appropriate use of the theoretical-methodological section, its congruence with the field of study, the coherence between the academic contribution and the relevance of the findings described, as well as the currency and timeliness of the bibliography used.

All texts will be sent to two experts from different institutions where the authors are affiliated. In case of disagreement in the review, they will be sent to a third reviewer who will resolve the issue.
Finally, based on the reviewers' recommendations, the editorial board will decide whether to:
Recommend publication without modifications.
Recommend publication with minor changes that do not require a second review by the referees.
Condition publication on the implementation of significant changes.
Not recommend publication.
For a text to be approved for publication, two positive reviews are required. The editorial board will ensure, in all cases, that the reports submitted to authors contain solid arguments supporting the editorial decision.
The results of the peer review process are final.

If feedback is received, authors will have fifteen calendar days to submit a revised version of their work to the editor.
The time it takes for a document to be submitted for review will depend on the number of articles on the waiting list. Reviewers, upon receiving the article, will have three weeks to review it and submit their report.
The final review results will be communicated to the author within ninety business days from the submission deadline.
Accepted documents will begin the editing process (copyediting, metadata tagging, formatting, layout, etc.) and will subsequently be included in the corresponding issue, as determined by the editorial board. Once the editorial process is complete, the preliminary version of the text will be sent to the authors for final review and approval. They will have three calendar days to provide their approval; if no comments are received within this timeframe, the journal's editorial team will assume that the authors have given their tacit approval.

Authors must register and submit their proposals through the journal's online journal system (OJS), which ensures impartiality and objectivity in the evaluation process. The Editorial Committee will confirm the suitability of the received documents and assign them to an editor or team of editors for each issue. Proposals must be submitted in response to a Call for Papers, which is typically published during May-June and October-November.

Authors must submit their work in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and following the guidelines for authors, which can be found in the editorial policy section. Submission of original works requires a declaration from the author that their proposal is original and unpublished and is not under review in any other process. By submitting, the author agrees to the copyright notice.

Authors will receive an email confirming their submission and a response to their proposal within one month of the call for papers closing date. Within this timeframe, two reviewers, preferably external and with experience in the subject area, will evaluate the proposal, assessing:

Its thematic suitability,
The relevance and clarity of the title, abstract, and keywords,
The content structure and/or development of the argument,
The relevance and/or originality of the proposal, and
The relevance and timeliness of the bibliography and methodology.

COPE's Proposal for Ethical Scientific Review

I. Keep in mind that the journal expects the reviewer to demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter, sound judgment, and an honest and fair assessment of the text's strengths and weaknesses.

II. At the beginning of the review, it should be made clear whether the review is comprehensive or focuses on specific aspects. In the latter case, these aspects should be specified.

III. Follow the journal's instructions regarding the report's structure and the aspects to be addressed.

IV. Maintain objectivity and a constructive tone in the reviews and provide comments that help improve the text.

V. Do not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.

VI. Strive for specific and focused (not general) criticisms and provide evidence with appropriate references to support general statements such as "this work has been done before," to assist the journal in its decision and to ensure fair treatment of the text's authors.

VI. It is important to remember that this is other people's work and should not be rewritten according to the reviewer's preferred style if it is sufficiently sound and clear; however, suggestions for changes that improve clarity are important.