Peer Review and Editorial Process Policy
Purpose and Review Model
REMAP submits all unpublished contributions to a peer review process under a double-blind model, in which reviewers do not know the identity of the authors and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. This policy describes the criteria used to assess submissions, the actors involved, the stages of the process, the expected timeframes, and the possible editorial decisions, so that authors clearly know the path their contribution follows from receipt to final decision. It should be read together with the journal’s code of ethics, originality and similarity screening policy, and artificial intelligence use policy.
Scope and Evaluation Criteria
Research articles and all other works published in peer-reviewed sections of the journal are submitted to external review. Evaluation considers the originality of the argument, the relevance of the topic to the field, and the methodological quality of the work, understood as argumentative coherence, conceptual precision, clarity of language, and methodological rigor. Book reviews and bibliographic review essays follow an editorial assessment process appropriate to their nature.
Actors in the Process
The Editorial Committee guides the journal’s editorial policy and initially assesses each contribution’s relevance and compliance with the journal’s rules before it is sent for review. The journal’s editorial direction manages the process and decides on publication on the basis of the reviews received. The Technical Secretariat, appointed by the editorial direction with the support of the Committee, is responsible for operating the workflow and communicating with authors and reviewers. Reviewers, who are national and international specialists in the subject matter, provide the assessments that support the editorial decision.
Stages of the Process
1. Receipt and formal review. The Technical Secretariat verifies that the submission complies with the journal’s editorial requirements. Submissions that do not meet these requirements are returned to the author without peer review.
2. Originality screening. The manuscript undergoes a similarity check in accordance with the journal’s originality policy before being sent for review.
3. Assessment of relevance. The Editorial Committee assesses thematic relevance and compliance with the journal’s rules and decides whether to send the contribution for review.
4. Assignment of reviewers. The contribution is sent anonymously to two specialists in the subject area.
5. Review. Each reviewer issues a written assessment within the established timeframe.
6. Decision and communication. The editorial direction makes a decision on the basis of the reviews, and the Technical Secretariat communicates the result to the author.
7. Revision and closure. When appropriate, the author addresses the observations received and, depending on their scope, the work either returns to review or proceeds to editing.
8. Editing and publication. Once accepted, the work enters the editing process and is published with its identification data and persistent identifier.
Timeframes
The journal notifies authors of the result of the process within a maximum period of three months. The timeframe for completing a review is thirty calendar days; when a review is not delivered within that period, the editorial direction appoints another reviewer. The result is communicated to the author no later than five days after the journal receives it. When revisions are requested, the author has fifteen calendar days to respond; if no response is received, the journal is no longer committed to continuing the process.
Possible Decisions
· Acceptance. With two favorable reviews, the work proceeds to publication management.
· Acceptance with observations. The author receives the reviews and addresses the observations; depending on their scope, the revised version either returns to the reviewer for final assessment or proceeds directly to editing.
· Discrepancy between reviews. When the two assessments differ, the journal requests a third review, whose assessment guides the decision.
· Non-publication. If the result of peer review is unfavorable, or if the author does not accept the observations, the Editorial Committee formalizes the decision not to publish the work.
Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
The journal safeguards the anonymity of authors and reviewers and treats all information related to the process as confidential. Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest that may compromise their impartiality and must refrain from reviewing when they recognize the authorship of the work or have a relationship that affects their independence, in accordance with the journal’s code of ethics.
Validity and Updating
This policy is reviewed periodically in order to remain aligned with good editorial practices. Questions about the process may be addressed to the REMAP editorial direction at remap@ugto.mx.
References
· COPE, Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
· COPE, Core Practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices