Evaluation Criteria

 

The journal’s editorial team will acknowledge receipt of submitted manuscripts. The estimated review period is approximately 120 days, during which submissions will undergo the corresponding review process. Once the review has been completed, authors will be notified of one of the following editorial decisions: acceptance, acceptance subject to revisions, or rejection. Authors of manuscripts accepted subject to revisions will have fifteen days to make the requested changes. Contributions that do not comply with these guidelines will not be published.

Peer-review process

Submitted works—both open-submission articles and contributions to Dossiers—will undergo two stages of review: an internal review conducted by the Associate Editors of the Dossier and an external double-anonymous peer review. Open-submission articles will also undergo two stages of review: an internal review conducted by the Editorial Committee of the Instituto de Historia del Arte and an external double-anonymous peer review.

Internal review

This stage is conducted by the Editorial Committee of the Instituto de Historia del Arte, whose members know the author’s identity, and vice versa. The Editorial Committee will determine whether the submitted content complies with the journal’s formal requirements and falls within the thematic scope of Cuadernos de Historia del Arte.

During the initial stage, authors will be informed whether their topic falls within the journal’s areas of interest. Where necessary, changes may be suggested before the external review begins. External review will commence once the submission meets the formal and thematic requirements.

The final decision to accept or reject a submission rests with the Editorial Committee, which will base its decision on the reports received concerning the scholarly quality of the contribution. The Editorial Committee may also reject submissions without external review when it determines that they do not meet the journal’s technical or scholarly requirements or when there is evidence of plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

External review

External review is conducted using the double-anonymous system. Under this system, authors do not know the reviewers’ identities, and reviewers do not know the authors’ identities. Each article will be sent to at least two external reviewers, who will prepare a report in accordance with the reviewer guidelines and complete the corresponding evaluation form.

When the review process begins, every effort will be made to ensure that reviewers do not belong to the same university or institution as the author. If the reports reach conflicting conclusions, a third specialist will be asked to review the submission.

Evaluation criteria

  • Originality: submissions must be unpublished and must not be under simultaneous consideration by another journal.
  • Presentation: conceptual and expressive clarity, together with compliance with the journal’s author guidelines.
  • Scholarship: consideration of and engagement with relevant research in the discipline.
  • Evidence: consistency of the methodology employed, the data presented, and the analysis conducted.
  • Reasoning: soundness of the arguments, inferences, and theoretical interpretations.
  • Theory: an appropriate conceptual foundation supported by verifiable evidence.
  • Length: suitability of the manuscript’s length for the type of contribution.
  • Ethics: compliance with the licences, authorisations, and permissions required for publication, in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies.

In the digital environment, a scholarly journal’s primary purpose is to provide a space for dialogue among researchers and contribute to the circulation and discussion of scholarly knowledge.