Editorial Process

Admission and Peer Review Process

1. Admission and selection of articles

The admission of articles submitted by authors is decided with the approval of the Editorial Committee–Scientific Council (this evaluation is internal). Using the forms designed for evaluation, they assess the article blind (without the authors' names) from the moment it is received, within a set deadline to issue the evaluation report, which must include not only opinions but substantiated positions and recommendations for improvement, if any.

2. Specifications of the Editorial Committee's report

According to the planning and progress of the evaluation of the submitted works, the editors may issue three types of reports through the Journal's Secretariat:

1. Accept the article for that volume. This is called the Acceptance Report, and the article proceeds to peer review.
2. Assign the article to a future volume.
3. Require resubmission after addressing the observations and suggestions from the evaluation. This is an Acceptance Report subject to observations.
4. Reject the article for not complying with the publication guidelines.

Once the scientific reviews have been considered, the criteria that justify the Editorial Committee's decision to accept or reject a work are:

1. Currency and innovation.
2. Relevance and scope: advancement of scientific knowledge.
3. Scientific integrity and validity: methodological quality.
4. Alignment (logical coherence and formal presentation).
5. Internationalization of the work.
6. Presentation: good writing.

Authors may access the publication online, both in its preliminary and final versions.

3. Peer Review Process

Once the manuscript is definitively received with all adjustments, the double-blind review by academic readers begins, as follows:

Articles are evaluated by Academic Readers, meaning the reviewer will have credentials equal to or higher than the author submitting the article in the specific discipline, and is selected by the Editorial Committee. These Academic Readers must also have at least one publication related to the proposed topic.

The selected Academic Readers review the article blind from the moment it is received, within a set deadline to issue the evaluation report, which must include not only opinions but substantiated positions, along with any recommendations for improvement.

The author(s) must address the Academic Readers' recommendations and resubmit the article for publication.

Privacy Policy

1. The names and addresses provided in this journal will be used exclusively for the services offered by this publication and will not be made available for any other purpose or to third parties.
2. The authorship identification of each work is removed from the original file, including through the Word Properties option, to safeguard the journal's confidentiality criteria when the work is submitted to peer review (for example, articles), in line with the instructions provided to ensure anonymous evaluation. The file must be anonymized in its File Properties so that the authors' identity does not appear.