Peer review process

1. Collaborations will be received on a permanent basis, which will be subject to a referral system.
2. To be admissible, articles must meet the following requirements: a) deal with a relevant topic with respect to those defined in the objectives of the journal; c) be unpublished and original articles; c) be in accordance with editorial standards in terms of length, citation system, bibliographic references and other specified guidelines.
3. The works that satisfactorily respond to these requirements will be sent for evaluation to two specialists, who will judge them without knowing the identity of the author.
4. The evaluations will be carried out according to the virtual form that appears on this same page, covering the series of items proposed on the quality and originality of the writing.
5. The opinions will contain the following recommendations: a) Accepted without modifications for publication; b) Publishable with modifications; c) Not publishable.
6. In the event that both advisors issue a favorable opinion, and it is accepted without modifications, it will be included in the publication plan.
7. In the event that the opinions are favorable, but modifications are suggested in the writing, the authors may: a) withdraw from its publication; b) make corrections to the article, which will be sent to the same evaluator for acceptance.
8. In the event that both opinions are unfavorable, the inclusion of the article will be rejected.
9. In the event that the opinions are divergent, a third specialist will be consulted, whose favorable or unfavorable opinion will define the inclusion of the article.
10. The Editorial Board will communicate in these different instances the decision made to the authors, who must review the proofs of the articles before publication.

ARBITRATION REPORT
Review form

Please review the manuscript taking into account the following aspects:
1. Does the article contribute to the advancement of knowledge? Explain your judgment about the originality and contributions contained in the evaluated text.
2. Comment on whether the ideas are clearly stated in the text, whether the argument is coherent, and whether the conclusions drawn are consistent.
3. Is the study well documented? Clarify whether the information you use is appropriate to support the claims it contains.
4. Do you consider that the bibliography used, both the sources and general bibliographic and newspaper references, is sufficient and appropriate for the topic discussed?
5. Is the writing of the article well organized in its parts and does it have a coherent structure? Are the title, summary and keywords consistent with the development of the arguments made?
6. Does the author have an interesting and enjoyable style for the reader? Are there editorial problems detected in the text that need to be corrected?
7. Make the comments and observations that you consider pertinent for the general weighting of the evaluated writing:
Recommendation:
_ Accepted without modifications for publication.
_ Publishable with formal modifications.
_ Publishable with content modifications (requires new round of review).
_ Not publishable.