Peer Review

Editorial and peer review process:

• All submitted manuscripts will be initially read by the Editor. One or more associate editors may be involved in the early decision-making process regarding the manuscript. Manuscripts that are not clearly written, or whose information is not considered important or of interest to the journal's audience, will be rejected at this stage.
• In the next stage, manuscripts are sent to two experts in the field for peer review. The review process is "double-blind," so the identities of authors and reviewers are not revealed to each other. The goal is to provide an initial editorial decision within 12 weeks, although this depends on the timely response and collaboration of the reviewers.
• Accepted manuscripts will be edited according to the journal's style format and returned to the corresponding author for approval of the final version.
• Authors are responsible for all statements made in their work.
• The total editorial process time ranges from at least eight to 16 weeks.

Policy for the review of articles written by editors and Editorial Board members

Articles submitted for publication by editors and members of the Editorial Board are subjected to an impartial editorial process. It is guaranteed that the peer review is conducted by two or three experts external to the Editorial Board. In no case is direct publication permitted without undergoing the rigorous peer review process.

The detailed peer review process is described below:

• The anonymous version of the manuscript is sent to two internal or external reviewers, selected by the Editor or Associate Editors, according to the topic.
• Reviewers issue their opinion in the Review Form, which contains three sections: evaluation through a checklist, comments and suggestions for the authors, and a recommendation to the Editor (Major changes, Minor changes, Accepted, Rejected).
• Once authors receive the arbitration results and reviewers' recommendations, they have up to 15 business days to respond. Authors must submit a "Response Letter," addressing, point by point, the observations and recommendations of the reviewers. Additionally, they need to submit a new version of the manuscript with the implemented changes. If the specified period is exceeded and authors submit the manuscript, the text would be evaluated as a new article, restarting the process. Therefore, we recommend requesting an extension promptly if unable to meet the established deadlines. If no response is received within the specified timeframe, and following a reminder communication where appropriate, the manuscript may be administratively closed in the editorial management system. Files closed due to lack of response will not be reactivated. Any subsequent version, should the journal deem it appropriate to consider it, must be submitted as a new manuscript and will be evaluated in accordance with the journal’s current editorial policies, without this implying continuity with the previous editorial process. The journal reserves the right not to consider new submissions of manuscripts that were previously closed due to abandonment of the editorial process, particularly when the time elapsed renders the continuation of the prior evaluation process unfeasible.
• Modified manuscripts are sent to the reviewers for a second review (or eventually a third) and issuance of the final decision.
• The Editor makes the final decision for publication or rejection.
• Authors receive the final decision and an Acceptance Letter for the manuscript.

In order to ensure transparency in our editorial and peer-review process, authors may consult and download the evaluation form used by our reviewers, which is available in the following file: