Evaluation Process

Manuscripts must be submitted exclusively through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, which automatically notifies the Editor-in-Chief and the authors of a new submission. The editorial process begins with the Desk Review, during which the editors assess the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope, its theoretical and empirical relevance, and compliance with formatting guidelines. This preliminary stage takes up to 15 days on average, depending on demand, and may result in immediate rejection or in the manuscript being forwarded to subsequent stages.

Once the Desk Review is completed, the manuscript undergoes a thorough reference check to ensure the existence, consistency, and adequacy of the cited works, as well as to identify any improper use of artificial intelligence tools. The identification of nonexistent references or unauthorized use of artificial intelligence results in the immediate rejection of the article.

In the final stage, the manuscript is submitted to a double-blind peer review process, ensuring the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Each article is evaluated by at least two external reviewers, who have up to 45 days to submit their reports. In cases of significant disagreement between reviews, a third reviewer may be consulted. The journal seeks to provide authors with an initial editorial decision within three months, considering criteria such as thematic relevance, textual structure, theoretical coherence, methodological rigor, and analytical consistency.

When both reviewers recommend rejection, the manuscript is automatically declined and the authors are notified. In cases where mandatory revisions are requested, authors have up to 15 days to submit a revised version, which will be reassessed by the reviewers. If the revisions are deemed insufficient, the article will be rejected. After final approval, the Editor-in-Chief officially notifies the authors, and the manuscript proceeds to copyediting and layout, a process that takes approximately one month. After publication, authors receive by email the access link to the final version of the article.

The journal maintains a non-negotiable commitment to academic integrity, ensuring that all manuscripts are evaluated impartially, rigorously, and anonymously, and are subject to strict originality verification procedures.

Review Form

  • Does the article present novelty or scientific relevance (in terms of theme, theory, method, or results)?

  • Does the text address theoretical or empirical elements relevant to the field of the College of Humanities?

  • Evaluate the introduction, problem statement, and definition of the object of study.

  • Is the state of the art adequately addressed, using relevant works on the topic?

  • Do the research methods and techniques allow for consistent results or rigorous empirical analysis?

  • Is there consistency in data analysis and/or discussion of results?

  • Are the conclusions or final considerations cohesive and consistent with the development of the text?

  • Does the article demonstrate scientific rigor and quality compatible with its field and with the College of Humanities?

  • Are the references current (last 10 years), relevant, and coherent with the text?

  • If necessary, provide suggestions for improvement regarding:

    • (a) Content (abstract, introduction, theoretical framework, method, results, analysis, discussion, and final considerations);

    • (b) Form (structure, language, and compliance with guidelines).

Review Conclusion – Final Recommendation

a) Accepted
b) Rejected
c) Mandatory revisions
d) Text with potential, but requiring in-depth revision and careful corrections; to be resubmitted after adjustments.