Peer review policy
The anonymous peer review process is a fundamental component of our rigorous editorial evaluation. Upon receipt, all articles undergo assessment by two external reviewers, following the double-blind review model. This approach ensures both the anonymity and confidentiality of the author(s) and the respective referees involved in the process.
During the evaluation, referees take into consideration various crucial aspects, including the originality and relevance of the article's topic, the timeliness and currency of the research line, methodological quality, overall presentation, and bibliographic references. This comprehensive analysis ensures that articles selected for publication meet the highest academic and scientific standards.
In situations where the opinions of the two referees differ—where one approves publication while the other rejects it—the Editorial Committee proactively intervenes. In such cases, a third referee is appointed to provide a decisive opinion. This additional measure helps resolve discrepancies and ensures that the final decision reflects a balanced and objective assessment of the manuscript in question.
This meticulous anonymous peer review process underscores our commitment to quality, integrity, and excellence in disseminating scientific knowledge, ensuring that only the most outstanding and rigorously evaluated works are included in our publications.
Review Process
Received research papers undergo an initial review by the editor. Papers that do not meet the established requirements outlined in the editorial and section policies will be rejected. The response to this initial review will be provided within a maximum period of two weeks. If deemed to meet the requirements, the paper will be sent to two independent experts for review through the double-blind system.
The outcome of the review may be:
- Accepted (without changes or with minor modifications).
- Accepted (with major modifications).
- Conditional on a revision.
- Rejected.
In any case, researchers will receive a qualitative and quantitative assessment, substantiating the decision made. The evaluation is based on the template provided: Evaluation.
The maximum time frame for the review process is eight weeks. If the evaluation result is conditional on further review and submission, authors will have a period of two weeks to submit changes in a version of the paper with tracked changes. The average time from receiving the article to publication is approximately 12 weeks.
