Peer review policy

Articles are first reviewed by the Editorial Board, who will make a pre-selection, to see if they meet the requirements for articles published in this journal. 

The Editorial Board can directly reject any manuscript without resorting to external consultation for any of the following reasons: if they consider them not fitting because they do not meet quality requirements, if they do not adhere to the scientific goals of the journal or if there is evidence of scientific misconduct. Manuscripts are revised using the plagiarism detection service provided by Crossref Similarity Check and powered by iThenticate.

This journal employs double blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process. Submissions are then sent out to, at least, two external referees, who are chosen for their expertise within the subject area. Should they not reach an agreement, the paper will be sent to a third external expert.

Every manuscript will be evaluated, except for reviews, which will be evaluated by the Editorial Board.

Anyone, whose work is to be reviewed, will be able to name up to three experts. The Editorial Board reserves the right to accept or reject the proposal and is not obliged to communicate its decision.

Reviewers are asked to comment on comprehensibility, originality and scholarly worth of the article submitted. All reviewers must follow the ethic code principles. Following the external review, the authors are sent copies of the external reviewers' comments and are notified of the decision (accept as it is, accept pending changes, or reject). The Editorial Board, taking into consideration the reports of the external reviewers, will decide whether to finally publish or reject an article and will always notify their decision to its author(s). Editorial Board may add comments to the reviewers' report if deemed necessary.

The time between receipt acknowledgement and the first evaluation is around 40 days in which the author will receive the reports produced by the reviewers together with the suggestions—if there were any. Authors will be required to introduce said suggestions within 20 days. Should any circumstance prevent that time commitment from happening, the journal will get in touch with the author to inform him/her about the state of the process.

In the case of negative evaluations, authors will have the right to reply. The reply will be managed by the Editorial Board.