Editorial and Review Process
Our rigorous evaluation process ensures the quality and academic excellence of publications, complying with international standards (Double-Blind).
Editorial Workflow
Reception and Initial Evaluation
1-3 daysThe editorial team verifies that the manuscript meets formal requirements and thematic scope. A strict originality check is performed using anti-plagiarism software.
Editorial Assignment
1-2 weeksA specialized editor evaluates the scientific relevance of the manuscript and decides whether to proceed to peer review or reject it at this stage (Desk Reject).
Peer Review (Double-Blind)
6-8 weeksThe editor assigns at least 2 international experts (national or foreign) in the field. During this process:
- Guaranteed anonymity: Reviewers do not know the authors' identities, and authors do not know the reviewers'.
- Rigorous evaluation: Originality, methodological rigor, contribution to the field, and expository clarity are evaluated.
- Tie-breaking: If evaluations are discrepant, a third deciding reviewer is called.
Decision and Revisions
2-4 weeksThe editor analyzes reports and issues a decision (Acceptance, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Rejection). Authors must respond to observations by addressing raised objections.
Editing and Final Publication
Final StageAfter scientific approval, the manuscript undergoes copyediting, layout, galley proof review, and JATS XML markup, to finally be published and digitally preserved.
Average Editorial Metrics
Transparency and Ethics
We strictly adhere to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The entire process is designed to be impartial and free from prejudices related to nationality, religious beliefs, or authors' political views.
View Author Guidelines