Peer review policy

Selection Process

The originals will be submitted to an editorial process that will be developed in several phases. First, the articles received will be subject to a preliminary evaluation by the members of the Editorial Committee, the Director and / or Editor, who will determine the relevance to the publication and ensure that the originality criterion is met. Once it is established that the article meets the thematic requirements, in addition to the formal requirements indicated in the instructions, it will be sent to two external academic peer evaluators, to the Editorial Committee and to the publishing institution, who will determine anonymously: a) publish without changes, b ) publish once minor corrections have been made, c) publish after a thorough review has been made, or d) reject.

In the event of a discrepancy between the two results, the text shall be sent to a third arbitrator, the decision of which shall define its publication. The results of the academic opinion process will be unappealable in all cases.

Evaluation format

For the evaluation of all research, review and reflection articles, seven aspects will be taken into account and each evaluator will assign a score from 1 to 10 justified in qualitative terms. Additionally, they will indicate the limitations of the work and will communicate the corresponding information. The evaluation format is structured as follows:

Criterion	QUANTITATIVE SCORE (1 to 10)	QUALITATIVE VALUE
Relevance to the topic
Originality of the approach
Theoretical, methodological and / or empirical contributions
Logical and analytical rigor
Relevant bibliographic review
Appropriate and relevant use of information sources
Clear and well-structured writing
TOTAL

 

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
LIMITATIONS OF THE WORK  (Briefly describe the limitations or shortcomings of the evaluated work)
EVALUATOR CONCEPT (Issue a brief final concept, depending on the option you choose)
Accept submission
Publishable with modifications
Forward for evaluation
Unpublishable