Peer Review

Articles are evaluated in two rounds of review. The first by members of the Scientific Editorial Board and the second by invited ad hoc reviewers. In the first round, the following items are evaluated: adequacy of the submitted files to the journal's scope; completion of metadata on the OJS platform; compliance of the article's presentation with the template and submission guidelines; article structure and similarity index. There is also a preliminary assessment regarding scientificity, clarity, innovation, and originality. The average time for this task is 1 to 4 weeks, depending on the flow of articles submitted to the journal.

In the second round of review, the manuscript is assigned to reviewers, ensuring alignment between the subject matter and the expert’s field of knowledge. All texts are subject to evaluation by at least two reviewers in a double-anonymous process, whose criteria are expressed in the following dimensions: cognitive (sequential and logical flow of scientific ideas), methodological (precise description of the methods and techniques used), and aesthetic (writing, format, and standardization).

Reviewers fill out a standard form with predefined options, which includes an open field for the justification of the final decision, accepting, rejecting, or recommending corrections and/or adjustments to the manuscripts. The peer review process lasts up to 90 days, depending on reviewer availability.

In case of discrepancies between the reviewers' assessments, the article is sent to a third reviewer, and the result is submitted to the Editorial Team for final judgment.

If modifications are requested, the article may be sent back for further review. Spelling and grammatical corrections in the original language of the article, as well as abstracts and titles in English and Spanish, will be the responsibility of the author(s). No additions or modifications are allowed after final review approval. Articles are then made available for publication in submission order.

The journal is working to align with the Open Peer Review model, through the publication of review reports alongside the articles in an anonymous format. The goal is that, after the peer review process, the review reports will be published along with the reviewers’ names.