Peer review

To ensure high-quality publications, all original articles will be subject to editorial and peer review. Book reviews will be only reviewed by the editorial staff.

After an article is submitted, the editors will conduct an initial review, checking if the text fits the journal’s scope and if it meets the quality standards. Articles considered out of the scope can be rejected with no peer review, according to the editor’s criteria. If the article is approved in its initial evaluation stage, it will be sent to double-blind peer review. This implies that authors and reviewers are kept anonymous during the whole process.

The editorial staff will select a minimum of two external reviewers specialists in the theme of the article. When there is no agreement between the two reviewers, the text will be sent to a third reviewer.

Based on the general recommendations of reviewers, the editors will decide and communicate to authors about it. The editor-in-chief is responsible for the final decision of approval or rejection of the article.

 The author can receive one of the three editorial decisions below:

• Accept: the text will be published in its original format.
• Accept with revision: the text will be published only after the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors.
• Reject: the text will not be published nor reconsidered.

If acceptance is subject to change, it will be up to the editorial team to decide whether the changes made by the author were adequate or not, and whether the points raised by the reviewers were considered. If necessary, editors can request a new evaluation round. After checking all the changes made, the article will be accepted or will receive final rejection.

Specific resources or problems will be examined and decided by the editorial team.