Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Model

This journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, whereby the anonymity of both authors and reviewers is preserved throughout all stages of the process. This procedure is intended to promote impartiality, objectivity, and transparency in editorial decision-making.

Peer review constitutes a process of critical and independent assessment carried out by specialists with recognized experience in the corresponding subject area, whose purpose is to verify the methodological soundness, academic relevance, argumentative consistency, and compliance with the ethical and editorial standards of the publication.

The editorial process is governed by the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), an international reference body in matters of scientific publication ethics, and is conducted in strict accordance with the Editorial Code of Ethics.

All manuscripts received are managed through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, which ensures the traceability of each stage of the editorial process and enables auditable documentation of all interactions among authors, editors, and reviewers.

Structure of the Editorial Process

Receipt of Manuscripts

Contributions must be submitted exclusively through the journal’s OJS platform. Manuscripts received will be registered and subjected to a preliminary verification by the Editor-in-Chief, who will confirm receipt to the authors.

Preliminary Editorial Evaluation

Estimated timeframe: 1 week.

Before initiating external peer review, the Editor-in-Chief will verify that the manuscript:

  1. Corresponds to the editorial focus, scope, and objectives of the journal.
  2. Complies with the guidelines for authors and the established submission standards.
  3. Observes the principles of academic integrity and research ethics.
  4. Successfully passes the documentary similarity assessment through the Turnitin platform, a specialized tool for detecting textual matches.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected or returned for adjustments before being sent for external evaluation.

Appointment of the Associate Editor

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary review will be assigned to an Associate Editor responsible for coordinating the evaluation process. The designated person must act with academic and editorial independence, refraining from participating whenever any conflict of interest exists arising from personal, professional, institutional, or collaborative relationships with the authors or with entities linked to the manuscript.

Selection and Invitation of Reviewers

Estimated timeframe: 1 week.

The Associate Editor will identify and invite at least two external specialists with proven experience in the subject matter addressed by the manuscript. Invited reviewers will have seven calendar days to accept or decline the invitation through the OJS platform. If no response is received within that period, the search for new reviewers will proceed.

In accordance with COPE guidelines, reviewers must:

  1. Accept only reviews for which they possess sufficient academic competence and availability to meet the established deadline.
  2. Declare any conflict of interest in a timely manner before accepting the assignment.
  3. Not accept a review solely for the purpose of accessing the content of the manuscript without intending to submit a report.
  4. Not accept the review of manuscripts that are highly similar to their own work in preparation or under evaluation by another journal.

External Peer Review

Estimated timeframe: 6 to 8 weeks.

The review will be conducted under a double-anonymity model and will consider, among other aspects:

  1. Originality and contribution to knowledge.
  2. Scientific, academic, or social relevance.
  3. Methodological rigor.
  4. Argumentative coherence and quality of the discussion.
  5. Adequacy and currency of the bibliographic references.
  6. Compliance with policies on academic integrity, research ethics, and, where applicable, the responsible use of artificial intelligence tools.

Reviewers will issue substantiated observations and an editorial recommendation. The review report must be objective, constructive, and aimed at improving the work. All criticism must be directed at the academic content of the manuscript; personal comments directed at the authors are inadmissible.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reports received and on their own academic assessment, the Associate Editor will issue an editorial recommendation to be communicated to the Editor-in-Chief. The possible decisions are:

  1. Accepted without modifications.
  2. Accepted with minor modifications.
  3. Accepted with major modifications.
  4. Rejected.

When conflicting reports prevent a reasoned decision, the manuscript will be sent for a third external evaluation, whose opinion will contribute to the final determination. Final acceptance will require a favorable assessment supported by the set of review reports and the corresponding editorial evaluation.

Review of Corrections

Authors must address the observations made during the evaluation and submit a new version of the manuscript accompanied by a detailed response to the comments received. Minor corrections will be verified by the Associate Editor. Major corrections may be submitted again for external evaluation to confirm that the recommendations issued have been adequately addressed.

Manuscripts that are not resubmitted within the established deadline—20 calendar days for minor corrections and 30 calendar days for major corrections—will be considered withdrawn from the editorial process.

Resolution of Disputes and Appeals

The Editor-in-Chief shall be the authority responsible for handling requests for reconsideration, disagreements, appeals, complaints, or disputes arising from the evaluation process. Any appeal must be submitted in writing and will be analyzed objectively, impartially, and on substantiated grounds, with the possible involvement of additional reviewers or members of the Editorial Committee.

Editorial Production

Once accepted, the manuscript will enter the stages of copyediting, technical editing, layout, and editorial production. The typeset version will be sent to the authors in proof format for final review and validation of the content prior to publication.

Publication

Accepted articles will be published in the corresponding volume or issue according to the journal’s editorial schedule or under a continuous publication model, where applicable.

Estimated Timeframes of the Editorial Process

The following table details the estimated timeframes for each stage of the editorial process:

Total estimated timeframe: 14 to 16 weeks under regular conditions; 20 to 24 weeks when a second round of evaluation is required.

Confidentiality

All information related to manuscripts received will be treated with strict confidentiality. Contents submitted for evaluation, review reports issued, and the identity of reviewers will not be disclosed to third parties, except when required by legal provisions or by expressly applicable institutional policies.

In compliance with COPE guidelines, reviewers shall:

  1. Not share the content of the manuscript with third parties or discuss it without express authorization from the journal.
  2. Not use privileged information obtained during the process for personal benefit or for the benefit of third parties.
  3. Not upload or process unpublished manuscripts in external artificial intelligence tools without express authorization from the journal and verifiable guarantees of confidentiality.
  4. Maintain the confidentiality of the process even after the evaluation has concluded, unless they have the express permission of the authors and the journal.