Peer Review Process

The Revista de Historia Americana y Argentina consider unpublished and original articles for publication, which will be submitted for evaluation.

The scientific quality and originality of the research articles are submitted to an international anonymous arbitration process (double blind). The arbitration process contemplates the evaluation of two judges, who belong to different institutions and universities external to that of the Publishing Entity of the Magazine. A period of one month is estimated for the specialists to inform the judgments. Depending on the opinions of the referees, the journal will inform the author of the feasibility of publishing his work.

The Revista de Historia Americana y Argentina reserves the right not to send for evaluation those works that do not comply with the indications indicated in the "Rules for publication", also reserves the right to make modifications to the accepted original text.

The journal reserves the right to include the articles accepted for publication in the number it deems most convenient.

The authors are responsible for the content and the points of view expressed, which do not necessarily coincide with those of the journal.

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.