Peer Review Process

Once the article is received, the RLM editorial team reviews the submissions to ensure that they comply with current editorial standards. The article is then sent to two external reviewers. The evaluation is anonymous for both the author and the reviewers (double blind). After receiving the two opinions, the editorial team follows the evaluators' decision. If the opinions do not coincide, a third evaluation is requested. The article may be rejected, accepted with modifications or accepted without modifications. The decision is communicated to the author within a maximum period of one month. When corrections or improvements are requested, the author will have one month to send the corrected text.

ARBITRATION REPORT

Article evaluation form

1. Does the work have an organized structure?

2. Is the writing of the work coherent and free of formal problems?

3. Does the selected corpus fit the problem(s) posed by the work?

4. Does the work clearly propose an objective(s)?

5. Are the data/problems handled by the work presented exhaustively and adequately?

6. Does the work contribute new elements to the discussion in which it is inserted?

7. Does the bibliography used reflect a professional updating process?

8. Does the work comply with the journal's Standards?

Reasoned judgments of the referee reader based on the previous evaluation of any other aspect that is considered relevant.

Do you know if this work has been published previously? (If the answer is yes, please indicate the corresponding references or data that may be useful for your location). To guarantee the originality of the article, we recommend using anti-plagiarism software, such as: Plagium http://www.plagium.com/, which searches for documents that are the same or similar to the text entered.

After reading the work, its general evaluation conforms to the following classification. The work is:

  • Insufficient
  • Well
  • Very good
  • Excellent

Last recommendation that will be communicated to the editor. Recommendation:

  • Its publication is recommended.
  • The work can be published if it is subjected to some content modifications (at the level of ideas and/or development).
  • The work can be published if it undergoes some formal modifications.
  • The work is not publishable.