Peer review process

General evaluation rules

  1. Unpublished works are accepted, that have not been published in any other media, and that are not subject to evaluation for publication in another journal.
  2. The evaluation of the submitted articles and reviews is carried out through "double-blind" peer review, guaranteeing the anonymity of authors and reviewers.
  3. The articles will be evaluated according to their originality, thematic relevance, contributions to the social and human sciences, internal coherence and clarity.
  4. The reviews will be evaluated based on their originality, internal coherence and quality of the evaluation of the contributions and limitations of the reviewed work.
  5. The average number of weeks between receipt of an article or review and its publication is 18 weeks.

Evaluation process

  1. The General Editor reviews and verifies that the article conforms to the topics in which the journal specializes and that it complies with the format guidelines required for the submission of originals. Likewise, the text is subjected to anti-plagiarism software.
  2. Articles that do not conform to the journal's research topics and/or that, according to the anti-plagiarism software, have a percentage of similarity greater than those regulated by the UNMSM will not be accepted for publication.
  3. In the event of non-compliance with any of the submission rules, the General Editor will return the manuscript to the author, who may submit it again once the appropriate corrections have been made within the stipulated time.
  4. Once the article has passed the first stage of evaluation, it will be submitted to a review process by peers external to the journal, who will have up to 8 weeks to send their evaluations. In case of discrepancy, a third party is called in to settle. The reviews are submitted to the evaluation of a specialist in the corresponding field.
  5. The evaluation of the reviewers can indicate four possible results:
    • Acceptable for publication without modification
    • Acceptable for publication if it clears minor comments
    • Acceptable for publication if it acquits major observations
    • Unacceptable for publication
  6. In each case, the opinion will be justified and the observations to which reference is made will be presented. In the instructions for the reviewers, it will be indicated which can be considered major or minor observations.
  7. The General Editor maintains communication with the author so that he/she assumes the major or minor observations made by the reviewers until, at their discretion, they have been acquitted.</li >
  8. Once the opinions of the reviewers have been received, the manuscript will be submitted again to the Editorial Committee, which, based on the opinion of the reviewers, will decide whether to accept the submitted manuscript.
  9. If the work is accepted by the Editorial Committee, the author is informed about the acceptance (accepted work).
  10. The manuscripts, with the author's corrections, are presented to the Editorial Fund for their preparation (press work). The General Editor will receive the galley proof of the article, which will be sent to the author to request their consent for publication.