Peer review process

Arbitration System

In compliance with the best practices, Magazin publishes its review system for contributions to the central section of the journal, as well as the evaluation criteria to be applied by external reviewers—anonymous and peer reviewers— who are not members of the Editorial Board. Criteria are exclusively based on the scientific relevance of the article, originality, clarity and relevance of the work presented. Magazin keeps these criteria updated.

EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW AND ANONYMOUS EVALUATION

Once the journal’s Editorial Board has verified that the article complies with the rules regarding style and content indicated in the guidelines for authors, the article will be sent to two anonymous expert reviewers who are not members of the Editorial Board. This is done according to the double-blind process, and the experts belong to the specific field of translation, interpreting, didactics, linguistic and literary research. When one of the two evaluations is negative, a third report will be requested.

The evaluation will focus on the relevance of the article, its contribution to the knowledge of the subject, the new features introduced, the relations established, the critical judgement developed, the bibliographical references, its correct wording, etc., making suggestions, if applicable, for its possible improvement.

Based on the reviewers’ suggestions, the journal’s editor will inform the authors of the reasoned result of the review by e-mail, at the corresponding author. The secretary will inform the main author of the result of the review (publication without changes; publication with corrections; not suitable for publication), as well as the reviewers’ observations and comments.

Depending on the degree of compliance with the requested modifications, the Editorial Commitee will decide whether to publish the article. The final decision will be taken by the members of the Editorial Committee. This decision will be communicated to the author.

If there is no consensus between the opinions of the reviewers, the Editorial Commitee will assign a third reviewer, who will send his or her report in a period of one month.

The section editor shall be assisted by the reviewers in the editorial decisions to be taken. They shall notify him/her, where appropriate and as soon as possible, of their unavailability to carry out their task. He/she shall refuse to evaluate contributions in case of conflict of interest.

The contributions received by the evaluator are considered confidential documents and their content must not be disclosed without the express authorisation of the editors, nor used for personal gain.

The evaluation must be based on objective criteria for assessing intellectual quality and scientific relevance and must be expressed in a clear and reasoned manner. In no case should the critique refer to the person of the author or in inconsiderate terms. The reviewers must identify, whenever possible, the originality of the text and those relevant publications that have not been cited by the author. Reviewers will collaborate with the author in improving the evaluated contributions.

The identity of the authors and the content of the contribution submitted will be preserved until publication, if deemed favourable, and in the event of rejection these contents will be archived in the journal's document archive.