Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

All articles postulated for possible publication, must be original and unpublished, the editorial team will verify that the document complies with the -Normas for authors-, then the article will be analyzed with the Ithenticate plagiarism detection software and finally requested at author sending the document where it is stated that the article presents original results, has not been published or submitted for simultaneous evaluation in another publication. Once the above is done, the author will be notified by means of proof of receipt of the article, the initiation of the double-blind and peer-reviewed arbitration process, the identity of both the authors and the dictators will remain anonymous.

Once the evaluation process has begun, the thematic relevance, quality and methodology of the document are evaluated and then the selection of 2 national and / or international opinion-makers, experts in the subject of the article, who will issue the opinion by selecting one of the following recommendations:

A. Publishable without modifications.
B. Publishable as an article leaving the author free to incorporate the suggestions made.
B. Conditioned to be publishable, only if the substantive reviews indicated in the suggestions are carried out. The author must submit the second version, to have a new revision. This process has a maximum of 2 rounds for a final review and if there is no favorable recommendation, the document will be rejected.
C. Not publishable as an article.

If both dictators give a favorable opinion, the author will be notified by means of the proof of accepted article, in case of a recommendation divided between the 2 dictators, a third reviewer will be used, whose opinion will be decisive.

In the case of a conditioned article, the author is requested to send the second version within 15 business days, and the aforementioned version will be sent again to the reviewers to give their final recommendation.

Articles that have the favorable recommendation will start the editorial process and will be included in the corresponding editorial number.

The preliminary version will be sent to the authors so that in a maximum of 3 business days they must indicate their approval; If no response is received within the aforementioned period, it is assumed that the authors have given their approval for final publication.

The arbitrators will receive the document without the author's name and will issue a written opinion based on the variables established in the evaluation format. Your decision will be: approved for publication; approved with modifications (specifying which ones); conditioned (background corrections); not approved. When one of the opinions is unfavorable, the article will be sent to a third arbitrator. If there are two unfavorable evaluations (not approved), the article will not be published. Invariably, the result of the opinions will be notified to the author. The failure of the evaluators will be final. In the case of approved documents, the author or authors will have a maximum of thirty days to attend the corrections suggested by the evaluators. This period may be shorter according to the modifications required by the article. If after the granted period the corrections are not received, the Editorial Committee will reject the article, communicating such decision to the author. The modified document will be sent to the evaluators to determine if the observations were satisfactorily addressed and, in this case, finally approve the publication of the article. In the case of articles conditioned by one the two evaluators, if at least one of them does not approve it, will be definitely rejected. Finally, any collaboration that has been accepted for publication will be subject to style review. The Sustainable Periplo reserves the right to make editorial changes deemed convenient, but respecting the author's sense and point of view.