Peer review process
ESPIRAL has a double-blind peer review system. All submitted papers are reviewed, first by the Editorial Team, which determines their relevance. If approved, the papers are sent, at least to a peer reviewer of recognized experience specialized in the subject. The process differs for each type of job proposed. Articles, essays and blogs sent for evaluation are initially reviewed by the Editorial Team of ESPIRAL, within a period of no more than 30 calendar days from the submission of the article in the electronic system. In this first stage, the relevance of the proposed work is determined in relation to the focus, norms and policies of the journal and the social relevance of the topic. After the first review, the proposed work is sent to the peer reviewers, who have another 30 calendar days to make comments and send the final response to the Editorial Team; According to this evaluation, the work will be classified as accepted or not accepted for publication in ESPIRAL. Finally, the authors have a maximum period of 30 days to modify the work according to the recommendations made. Reviews and interviews are directly evaluated by the editorial team, who decides whether the work is accepted for publication and communicates the final decision to the author within a maximum period of 30 calendar days.
Review with an anti-plagiarism software: ESPIRAL performs a review with an anti-plagiarism software on all papers. The works that present similarities greater than 10% will not be accepted.
Peer review: The accepted papers will be submitted to an evaluation process by anonymous reviewers (peer review). The reviewers will be selected for their expertise and knowledge on the subject to which the work to be evaluated refers. The reviewer is asked to evaluate the work according to international quality standards and criteria for publication. The reviewers will have the following characteristics: knowledge of the subject, not having competence problems, being recognized as a researcher and academic, responsibility and discretion in the evaluation. The reviewers receive the standards and recommendations on ethics and good behaviour that the Editorial Committee expects.
Selected reviewers are not paid. The authors of the articles can suggest reviewers when they submit the document, but the Editorial Team reserves the final selection of reviewers, who will remain anonymous.
Evaluation: The referees or reviewers issue suggestions and recommendations on how to improve the article.
The evaluation of the referees qualifies the work as:
- Work accepted without changes.
- Work for publication with minor changes
- Work for publication with major changes
- Rejected Work
- Work with suggestion for another journal.
ACCEPTANCE, "PRESS RELEASE" LETTERS
The submitted work has the status of ACCEPTED when it has passed the review process and the author has made all the corrections and modifications indicated. The accepted work is sent to correction of style and layout. The diagrammed version will be sent to the author by email to be reviewed and returned with a simple letter of agreement and permission for publication. When the Director of the magazine has all the documentation that will allow him to publish the work, then the work will be considered PRESS ARTICLE.
The ESPIRAL only provides proof of ARTICLE IN PRESS.
