Instructions for reviewers

Submission to reviewers

Editors will email the title and abstract of the assigned article to the selected reviewers via OJS, as well as an invitation to register on the journal’s website to complete the review. They must log in to accept the review assignment, download the submission, make comments and select a recommendation.

Deadline for review

The usual time frame for reviewing is 4 weeks.

Notes for reviewers

Although the editor can contact the reviewer directly, OJS default messages allow automatic reminder emails to be sent to reviewers in the following cases:

  • If the reviewer does not respond to a review request within 5 days.
  • When there are 5 days left before the review deadline.

Access for reviewers

The email invitation for reviewers includes a URL that links invited reviewers directly to the review page for submission (with access to any other pages where login is required).

Anonymous evaluation

Links to the SECURE ANONYMOUS REVIEW section are provided on the pages where reviewers upload files.

To ensure the integrity of a blind peer review for a submission to this journal, authors, editors and reviewers (who upload documents as part of their review) should check that their names have been removed from the text, using "Author" and year in references and footnotes, rather than authors' names, article title, etc.

Reviewer User Guide

You can find below the steps to follow in order to carry out the evaluation process on the platform. You can access the OJS manual (in Spanish):

1. Log in to the platform with the instructions received in the invitation email and in the reviewer's tutorial.

2. Enter username and password.

3. Click on "My list".

4. Click on the title of the submission.

On the Review screen will be displayed:

- Request for review. Displays the main information of the article: the title, abstract, review type, link to the files to review and review schedule. There are three dates indicated. These dates correspond to the following processes: editor’s submission of the request, response accepting or declining participation, and submission of the decision. You will also be asked to consent to the collection and storage of your data pursuant to the policy statement.

Review steps

Step 1: Inform the editor about the acceptance or rejection of the review.

Step 2: in case of acceptance, refer to the Reviewer Guidelines below.

Step 3: Click on the names of the files related to the assigned submission that you wish to download and review.

  • Once you have reviewed the article, complete the form also found in step 3.
  • In addition, you can upload files for the editor or author to view. The reviewer will have the text of the article submitted, where, using Word's change control system or by means of comments in the margin, he/she can add any observations, typos, etc. that he/she deems appropriate. In case you have modified the file or have made a document with your observations, you should add it at the end of step 3; to do so, press the "Upload file" button in the Upload/Reviewer's files section, locate the file you wish to send and press the "Continue" button in the next two stages and "Complete" in the last one. It is not necessary to upload a document; this step is optional.

Step 4: Select a recomendation and send your review by pressing the "Submit" button. It is mandatory to complete the form or upload a file befor choosing a recomendation option.

Criteria for acceptance of papers

1. Originality, novelty and relevance of the research carried out, as well as the interest of the work in the context of the areas of knowledge or disciplines covered by the journal.

2. Importance of the research for scientific and social progress.

3. Scientific validity of both the sources consulted and the methods used for the development of the research.

4. Adequate writing, logical organisation and presentation of the manuscript in accordance with the journal's style guidelines.

5. The structure of the headings of the article should follow the model: Introduction, Theory, Methodology, Results, Discussion, Conclusions and References. A combined Results and Discussion or Discussion and Conclusions section may also be appropriate.

6. It shall contain the following elements::

  • Abstract. 

    Written in the language of the article and including the English version. This summary must be clear and concise and consist of approximately 150 words. It should briefly state the objective, methodology, results and main conclusions. Bibliographical references should be avoided (reduced in any case to the author and year of the work) and unusual abbreviations (if indispensable, they should be defined in the first mention, in the abstract itself). The abstract must be presented independently, separate from the text of the article.

  • Structure of the article

    Introduction

    Introduction should include: the statement of the subject, the state of the question avoiding a detailed review of the bibliography, the objectives of the work and a justification of the importance of the contribution of this work to scientific knowledge, without being a summary of the results.

    Theory or Theoretical Background

    A Theory section should develop, not repeat, the scientific background of the research, already discussed in the Introduction, and lay the foundations for the research work being presented.

    Methodology

    In this section, the methodology used (sources, data, methods, techniques, procedure) should be given in detail. The entire research process should be presented in order to allow the work to be reproduced by another researcher. Methods used that have already been published should be referenced with a citation. The methodology used should reflect how it helps to solve the problems presented in the main questions, hypotheses or propositions.

    Results

    Results should be clear and concise. Tables, graphs, maps, diagrams can be used to allow the analysis and interpretation of the results.

    Conclusions 

    Conclusions should not be a summary of the work; rather, they should relate the verification or not of the hypotheses/propositions/main questions with the objectives and results obtained; highlighting, if it has not already been done, the contributions of the research. It is important to justify the interest and novelty of the work for the subject analysed or the scientific discipline from which it has been approached.

    Funding

    It is recommended to reference, if appropriate, in a note on the first page, the financial support received from research or administrative institutions (grants, research projects, EU projects, etc.).

    Acknowledgements

    Similarly, if appropriate, any support received (administrative, technical, etc.) that is not highlighted in the funding section can be acknowledged in this section.

    Annexes

    Optional section that may contain tables and information complementary to the text or other important elements to better understand the research presented. Information in annexes should be cited where appropriate in the text.

Review Form

The Review Form (online) contains the following items:

1. Is the topic of the contribution relevant to the subject matter of the core section of Magazin?

Recommendations, if any, for the author:

If applicable, comments addressed to the coordination team of Magazin: