The articles published in RLyLA have been through a double blind peer-review process.
Once the editorial board has confirmed that the article complies with the norms related to style and content as detailed in the authors submission guidelines, the article will be sent to anonymous reviewers who are known for their expertise in the field of study the proposed article focuses on.
The editor will send the results of the review process (reject, accept with changes, or accept) to the authors together with any observations or comments made by the reviewers.
If the article has been accepted, but changes must be made, the author will upload the revised version of the article, which will then undergo a second revision by the same reviewers.
If discussions between an author, editor, and peer reviewer have taken place in confidence, they remain in confidence unless explicit consent has been given by all parties or there are exceptional circumstances. Editors or board members are never involved in editorial decisions about their own work. We do not consider original research papers from editors of the journal.
Peer reviewers who repeatedly produce poor quality, tardy, abusive or unconstructive reviews are not used again. Editors of RLyLA encourage peer reviewers to identify if they have a conflict of interest with the material they are being asked to review, and editors ask that peer reviewers decline invitations requesting peer review where any circumstances might prevent them producing fair peer review.