Peer review

The articles are evaluated in two rounds. The first by members of the Scientific Editorial Board and the second by ad hoc guest reviewers. In the first round, the following items are assessed: suitability of the files submitted to the scope of the journal; completion of the metadata on the OJS Platform; conformity of the presentation of the article to the template and submission rules; structure of the article and similarity index. There is also a preliminary assessment of scientificity, clarity, innovation and novelty. The average time for this task is between 1 and 8 weeks, depending on the flow of articles submitted to the journal.

In the second round of evaluation, the manuscript is handed over to evaluators, respecting the suitability of the subject matter and the specialist's area of knowledge. All texts are submitted for evaluation by at least two reviewers in a double-anonymous process, whose parameters are expressed in the following dimensions: cognitive (sequential and logical sequencing of the content of scientific ideas), methodological (precise description of the methods and techniques used) and aesthetic (writing, form and standardization).

The evaluators fill in the standard form with predetermined options, in which there is an open field for justifying their final decision, accepting, rejecting or recommending corrections and/or adjustments to the manuscripts. The peer review process lasts up to 90/120 days, depending on the availability of the reviewers.

If the reviewers' opinions differ, the article is sent to a third reviewer, and the result is submitted to the Editorial Team for final judgment.

If changes are requested, the article may be sent back for further evaluation. Spelling and grammar changes in the language of the article, as well as abstracts and titles in English and Spanish are the responsibility of the author(s). No additions or modifications are allowed after approval of the final review. The articles are then available for publication in protocol order.

The journal is trying to adapt to the Open Evaluation proposal by publishing the opinions anonymously together with the articles. The aim is that, after the peer review process, the reviews will be published together with the names of the reviewers.