Upon the arrival of a new submission, the Editorial Board of the journal will verify that it meets the type of contribution and thematic scope of the journal.
If the submission is accepted, it will move to the review stage, and two expert researchers will be selected to provide individual evaluation reports. These reports will assess the manuscript’s content, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope, as well as its methodological soundness, bibliographic and formal quality, and its contribution to the field of knowledge, following a double-blind peer review system. In the event of conflicting reports, a third review will be requested.
The reviewers’ reports will serve as support for the editorial decision, which rests with the Editorial Board. The corresponding author will be informed of the decision, which may be: acceptance of the submission, acceptance with minor revisions, a request for major revisions (in which case the revised manuscript will be subject to a new round of peer review), or rejection. The Editorial Board aims to justify its decision and to provide guidance to the author(s) regarding the relevance and potential of their research.
An initial editorial decision (acceptance or rejection) will be made within the first three months, and final acceptance will be communicated within six months of submission, depending on the volume of submissions being handled at any given time.
An initial editorial decision, following a preliminary screening of the submission (Focus and Scope), will be made within a maximum period of four weeks. The editorial decision following peer review will normally be communicated within a maximum of three months, and final acceptance within six months of submission, depending on the volume of submissions being handled at any given time.
