Peer review

Review process

Articles will be reviewed using the standardised international double-blind peer review system, which guarantees the anonymity of authors and reviewers throughout the review process.

The process for reviewing papers will be as follows:

  1. Preliminary assessment, performed by the Editorial Board or by the issue coordinator if it is a case study, to check the suitability of the articles to the publication standards and to the subject matter of the journal. These works may be rejected without being forwarded to external reviewers due to their lack of originality, non-compliance with style standards, spelling errors, or lack of alignment with the journal's interests, or they may be returned to the author for adaptation (before forwarding them for an external assessment).

  2. Peer review. Once the preliminary review is complete, papers will be forwarded to two external reviewers. The Editorial Board may send the text to a third reviewer in the case of conflicting reports or when the Board considers so appropriate. The outcome of this report will determine whether the paper is accepted or rejected.

In light of the referees' reports, the Editorial Board may take one of the following decisions, which will be communicated to the author:

  1. Publishable: as is.

  2. Publishable following review with minor corrections: In this case, the publication of the work will be subject to the author making the changes required by the journal's editorial staff. A brief explanatory report must be attached explaining the changes introduced and how they fit the evaluation requirements.

  3. Publishable after review with substantive corrections. Submitting a new version does not guarantee publication, as the assessment process will start over from scratch.

  4. Not publishable.In this case, the work is rejected and a justification provided. The author can exercise their right to appeal this decision by writing to the journal's publisher.

When amendments are requested, the author shall have four weeks to make these and they shall be subject to review by the assessors who requested them.  To facilitate this reassessment, the authors' submission of the review will consist of a document reflecting the changes introduced, for example, with track changes. Additionally, the document with the newly revised text may be submitted without track changes. If desired, the author(s) may also submit a letter to the Editorial Board justifying the changes made to the article. 

The average assessment time for articles, barring incidents, is 30 days, starting from the date on which receipt is confirmed.  Evaluators receive the evaluation request with a suggested deadline and are asked for their commitment. Once the assessment process is complete, the Editorial Board will inform the authors by email as to whether the submissions have been accepted or not, as well as the publication date, where applicable. The results of the academic review process will be final in all cases.