Peer Review Process

Preliminarily, the works are evaluated by the Editorial Committee in order to determine if the topic adjusts to the thematic and methodological interests declared by the journal. When this first evaluation is positive, two national and/or foreign referees or referents, specialists in the field corresponding to its content, are chosen to evaluate the quality of the contribution. For the selection of the evaluators, the research area corresponding to the content and the institutional affiliation will be taken into account in order to guarantee the competence, impartiality and objectivity of the verdict.

The editorial process, from the submission of the manuscript to its acceptance for publication, is carried out through the editorial manager OJS (Open Journal System). Authors must upload their papers to the journal's website and from there they will be able to follow each stage of the editorial process.

All articles submitted for publication must be original and unpublished, may have a maximum of two co-authors, and must not be simultaneously submitted to other journals or editorial bodies. The contribution must follow the General Guidelines for authors and the Rules for citations and references. The referee is anonymous and external. To ensure anonymity, two copies must be sent. One with the author's data. The other without any data that identifies the author, which is essential as a guarantee of transparency and objectivity. Therefore, the anonymous copy should not state the author. In turn, thank you notes and references to research projects or presentations at academic meetings should not be included in the anonymous copy intended for evaluators.

The evaluation system adopted by the journal is double-blind (the anonymity of the authors and the evaluators is maintained). The postulated papers may be: (a) accepted, (b) conditionally accepted or (c) rejected. In the event that opinions differ and a divided opinion is given (that is, one of the evaluators rejects the work and the other accepts it), arbitration by a third specialist will be requested to settle the disagreement.

The review process will last approximately 1 month (the term could be extended in extraordinary cases). Based on the evaluators' reports, the editors will notify the author, by email, of the decision adopted, which will be final.

In the event that an article is accepted, minor and/or form modifications may be requested to comply with the guidelines indicated in the General Guidelines for authors and the Rules for citations and references, modifications that the author must make within a period of one month (30) days maximum.

In the event that the article is conditionally accepted, the comments of the referrers will be sent to the authors, who will have a maximum period of one month (30 days) to make the corresponding changes (if said period is insufficient, a request may be made). an extension of one month (30 additional days) justifying the reasons that make it impossible to modify the comments within the stipulated period). Once the corrections have been made, the authors must send a new version of the manuscript. The new version will be sent to the original evaluators so that they can evaluate whether the work will be approved or rejected, a decision that will be immediately communicated to all the authors.

When the article has been accepted and its final version is available, the editorial process of the Revista de Historia Universal begins, in which it is reviewed that there is adaptation to the stipulated norms. Likewise, the tasks of editing, style correction, design and, finally, publication begin.

ARBITRATION REPORT

Article evaluation worksheet

Article title

1. Can the work be considered an article or a note?
2. Is the writing original? Does it contribute to the knowledge of the proposed topic?
3. Is it correctly written or does it need to be reformed? In the latter case, indicate the main errors (spelling, syntax, excessive repetition, unintelligible phrases, etc.).
4. What is your recommendation regarding the publication of the work?
a) Accept it as it is in terms of content but make the style changes suggested in the text.
b) Accept it conditionally. The author must review the points suggested in 5. The evaluation of such changes will be the responsibility of the Editorial Committee, which will consult it again only in case of important doubts.
c) Reject it, but offer the author the opportunity to re-evaluate it if they review the work according to the guidelines suggested in point 5. In this case, you must review the work again.
d) Reject it for the reasons stipulated in point 6.
5. Criticisms and suggestions (respond if you have selected alternatives b or c).
6. Reasons for rejection (respond only in the case of having selected alternative d).
7. Add any other comments that you consider pertinent and are not included in the form.