Academic Review

Contributions must favorably accredit the academic review process, which operates under the modality of double-blind peer review, in which both the identity of the authors and reviewers will remain anonymous:

  1. The articles that accredit Editorial review will be sent to academic experts in the same disciplinary and thematic area of the submitted text. The reviewers will be chosen from the panel of referees —composed of specialists of national and international institutions— who will produce their comments on the relevance and quality of the submitted text and rule on the feasibility of publishing the text in question.
  2. The reviewers will be responsible for reviewing and analyzing the medical, theoretical and methodological relevance of each and every text they are assigned. They will be responsible for revising the explicit presence of a theoretical-methodological section, as well as its concurrence with the field of study, coherence between the academic output and the relevance of the findings described, as well as the up-to-dateness and appropriateness of the resorted bibliography.
  3. All the texts will be sent to two experts —ascribed to an institution other than the authors’— who will comment on the text. Finally, on the basis of the reviewers’ recommendations, the decision of the editor will be: a) Recommend its publication without modifications. b) Recommend its publication with minor changes without the need of a second review by the referees. c) Condition its publication on making major changes, which makes a second review by the referees necessary. This process can be repeated up to three rounds, if upon reaching this point the document is not recommended for publication yet, the article will be rejected with no possibility to be resent. d) Do not recommend its publication.
  4. In case of dispute over the reviews, a third referee will be asked to review the text.
  5. For a manuscript to be approved for publication, it is essential that at least two of the three rulings are positive.
  6. The editorial board will ensure, in all cases, that the reviews delivered to the authors are solidly substantiated to support the editorial decision.
  7. The outcomes of the academic review process are unappealable in all cases.
  8. In case of receiving observations, the author will have a 4-week deadline to send the editor a new version of the work.
  9. The time for the document to be sent to review will be in function of the number of articles in waiting list. The referees, upon receiving the article, will have five weeks to carry out the review and deliver their ruling.
  10. The accepted documents will go on to the edition process (proofreading, metadata mark-up, typesetting, layout design, etc.), to later be included in the corresponding fascicle according to the decision of the editorial board.
  11. Once the editorial process concludes, the preliminary version of the text will be sent to the authors for their final revision and approval. They will have three natural days to deliver their approval, if this deadline is not met, the journal’s editorial coordination will assume the authors have tacitly approved.