Peer Review

Contributions who favorably accredit the Editorial Review process will pass to a double-blind peer review system, where the identity of both the authors and the reviewers will remain anonymous:  

  1. The contributions that accredit the Editorial Review will be sent for review to expert specialists in the same disciplinary and subject area as those of the postulated text.  
  2. The reviewers will be selected from the portfolio of national and international reviewers, who will issue comments on the relevance and quality of the proposed text and will determine the feasibility of publishing the text in question.
  3. The reviewers will be responsible for reviewing and analyzing the medical, theoretical and methodological relevance of each and every one of the texts assigned to them. They will be responsible for reviewing the explicit presence of the theoretical-methodological section, as well as its consistency with respect to the field of studies, the coherence between the academic contribution and the relevance of the findings described, as well as the topicality and relevance of the bibliography to the that is appealed. 
  4. All the texts will be sent to two experts - affiliated to an institution other than the authors' own- who will issue their comments. Finally, based on the reviewers' recommendations, the editor's decision will be:
    1. Recommend its publication without modifications.
    2. Recommend its publication with minor changes, and that do not require a second review by the referees.
    3. Recommend its publication with major changes, which requires a new assessment by the reviewers. This process can be repeated up to a maximum of three rounds, if at this point the document is still not recommended for publication, the article will be rejected without the option of a new submission.
    4. Do not recommend its publication.
  5. In case of controversy in the opinions, the intervention of a third reviewer will be requested.
  6. For a text to be approved for publication, it is essential that at least two of the three opinions are positive.
  7. The editor will guarantee, in all cases, that the opinions delivered to the authors contain solid arguments that support the editorial decision.
  8. The results of the academic opinion process will be final in all cases.
  9. In case of receiving comments, the author will have a period of four weeks to send the new version of the work to the editor.
  10. The time for the document to be sent to peer review will depend on the number of articles on the waiting list.
  11. The reviewers, once the article is received, will have six weeks to review and deliver the result.