logo

PROCEDURE REGARDING THE RECENSION OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALS

 

All the materials received for publishing from national and international authors are subject to the recension procedure (peer review). The goal of this procedure is to help the authors improve their scripts with the aid of comments and feedback offered by specialized reviewers.

The steps taken regarding the recension-publication procedure are:

  1. The authors send their scripts to the journal’s official address or to the institutional address of the editor-in-chief or of the lead editor´s associate. Within a maximum of five days, the editorial board of the journal verifies if the script conforms to the general rules of redaction specific to the journal. If the material does not conform to the general rules of redaction, the author will be advised to review his script and to send it back in conformity to the journal’s rules. On the contrary, the paper’s publication will not be allowed.
  2. Depending on the script’s subject, at the request of the editor-in-chief and lead-editor, the subeditor will send the material to be reviewed (without revealing the author’s name) by two members of the scientific committee, which within a maximum of five days will confirm their intention to honour the review. If the reviewers decline their competence regarding the script’s subject, the editor-in-chief and the lead editor associate will send, through the subeditor, the material (keeping its anonymity) to other two specialized reviewers who collaborate with the journal, whether national or international. Since their reception of the manuscript, in 30 days’ time, the reviewers will fill the journal’s peer review (model), establishing the score given to the script and inserting the comments regarding each of the five items, and they will send to the editor-in-chief the evaluation’s result. In order for it to be published, the material should be graded by the evaluating reviewers with at least 12 points.
  3. The editor-in-chief and the lead editor associate analyse the reviewer’s models and, depending on the evaluation’s results, the subeditor tells the author the results of the publishing report (positive or negative). In the case in which the reviewed script is joined by remarks which necessitate its improvement, the remarks of the anonymous specialized collaborators will be transmitted to the author regarding the script’s improvement. The author will answer whether they wish to take into account the received remarks and if they want to send the study in order for it to be published.
  4. It is the editorial board’s right to decide in which order will the studies will be published in the journal, depending on the number’s theme and the fields of expertise of the authors.