Review process
Editorial review, anti-plagiarism and article evaluation
1. Thematic evaluation, structure and citation rules. The pertinence of the text with the thematic axes of the journal and the fulfillment of the criteria described in the guidelines and the guide for authors is evaluated. If the article does not meet these parameters, it is returned to the author; if the formal or substantive presentation should be improved, the author is asked to make corrections and make a new submission within a time frame adjusted to the editing schedule; if the article meets the aforementioned conditions, the second stage of the process will follow.
2. Anti-plagiarism policy. In order to identify if the paper is original and unpublished and avoid possible plagiarism, all papers must undergo a technological revision which compares the manuscript with others published in digital media and Crossref academic publications. The technological system reports the similarity level, if it is over 25% the paper is discarded, if it is below 25% the paper is sent to the third step. The report also points out errors in citation and reference as well as primary sources and information credibility and avoids plagiarism.
3. Peer revision. All papers will be assigned referees under the double-blind review model. That is, both the author's and reviewers' identities and decisions regarding the paper are confidential. Once this review of the paper has begun, the author commits to seeing it through and not withdrawing the paper. The estimate time between the reception of the article and the evaluation process is about 3 months. This period may vary according to the order of arrival of the articles, the subject matter and other editorial processes.
Referee selection. The journal has a group of national and international research scholars, with wide experience and publications in the field of social sciences. Each paper is assigned two referees that hold a masters or preferably a doctoral degree in the field and have no conflict of interests; that are not part of the editorial or scientific committees, nor are they affiliated to Universidad Católica Luis Amigó, Colombian scholars must be recognized as researchers by Colciencias, international peers must have graduate education or an h5 index above 2.
Paper review: the director of the journal provides the referee with the paper, author guidelines and an assessment rubric which focuses on the following formal and topic based elements:
- Relevance of the paper for the journal´s fields of interest.
- Coherence between title and topic.
- Validity of the topic.
- Usage of concepts and terminology of the discipline.
- Relevance of graphics, tables and figures.
- Appropriate use of citation and reference.
- Up to date references
- Novelty of the paper
- Theoretical and methodological thoroughness
- Coherence
4. Decision. The rubric has three alternatives regarding the final decision: 1. “Accepted to publish with content unaltered” 2. “Accepted to publish with minor changes”; 3. “Rejected”. If both referees, consider that the paper should be “Rejected” the Director of the journal informs the authors and provides the result of the peer review. If both referees agree that the paper should be “Accepted to publish with content unaltered”, the author is notified and the paper is sent to edition. If one referee considers that the paper should be “Accepted to publish with content unaltered” while the other one “Accepted to publish with minor changes”, the author is notified about the required changes and the due date. If one of the referees considers that the paper should be “Rejected”, while the other one is under the opinion that it should be published, a third referee will be appointed by the editor (under the double-blind review model) in order to settle the situation. Once the third evaluation is received the author will be notified of the decision.
