Peer review process

The evaluation process is carried out following the following steps:

1. The Editorial Team together with the Editorial Committee receive the proposal for the publication of their article from the authors.
2. The Editorial Team and the Editorial Committee perform a review of the originality of the article through anti-plagiarism software.
3. The Editorial Team together with the Editorial Committee preselect the articles that are in line with the editorial profile of the Magazine and that have passed the anti-plagiarism test.
4. The Editorial Team together with the Editorial Committee select and send the article to external referees for evaluation.
5. The evaluation of the article is carried out through double blind by external referees.
6. The referees evaluate based on their knowledge and complete the Evaluation Sheet provided by the Editorial Team.
7. The result of the double-blind review is communicated to the authors through the Editorial Team.

If all the requirements requested by the referee are met, the Editorial Team and the Editorial Committee are in a position to publish the evaluated article in 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.