| Peer review process
ISSN 2395-9525
Español English

-The articles will be sent to academic experts in the same disciplinary and thematic area as the submitted text. The reviewers will be selected from the referee panel —composed of specialists from national and international institutions— who will comment on the relevance and academic quality of the submitted text and will rule on the feasibility to publish the text in question.

-The reviewers will be in charge of revising and analyzing the academic, theoretical and methodological relevance of each and every article assigned to them. They will be responsible for revising the explicit presence of a theoretical-methodological section, as well as its congruency with the field of studies, coherence between academic output and relevance of findings, and also the up-to-dateness and suitability of the bibliography resorted to.

-All the texts will be sent to two experts —ascribed to an institution other than the authors’— who will express their comments.

-In case of discrepancy between reviews, a third reviewer will be asked to resolve the ruling.

-Finally, on the basis of the reviewers’ recommendations, the decision of the editors of POLIBOTANICA will be:

      Recommend its publication without modifications.

      Recommend its publication with minor changes, which do not make it necessary a second review by the referees.

      Condition its publication on making major changes, which makes it necessary a new revision by the referees. This process may repeat up to three rounds, if upon reaching this point the document is not recommended for publication yet, it will be rejected with no option to resend it.

     Publication is not recommended.

-For a text to be approved for publication it is indispensable that, at least, two of the three rulings are positive.

-The editorial board will ensure, in all cases, that the reviews delivered to the authors have solid arguments to support the editorial decision.

-The results of the editorial review process will be unappealable in all cases.

-In case of observations to the articles, the authors will have a 15-natural-day deadline to send the editor the new version of the work. Should this deadline not be met, the document will start the process afresh.

-The time for the document to be sent to review will be dependent on the number of articles in the waiting list. The referees, upon receiving the article, will have four weeks to perform the review and deliver the result.

-The accepted documents will start the edition process (proofreading, metadata marking, layout, etc.), to later be included in the corresponding fascicle, according to the decision of the editorial board.

The evaluation parameters are:

TITLE:

Is it consistent with the content? *
 
TOPIC:

Does it belong to the scope of the magazine? *
  
INTRODUCTION:

Is it related to the title? *

Is the problem clearly described? *

OBJECTIVES:

Are they clear and related to the subject? *
  
RESULTS:

Do they meet the objectives set? *
  
PICTURES, GRAPHICS AND FIGURES:

Are they all necessary and follow the standards of the magazine? *
  
Are repetitive data presented? *
  
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Are they justified by the results? *
  
BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Is the inclusion of bibliography necessary? *
  
It is updated?*
  
Is it enough for the topic? *
































Powered by WebsiteBaker
OK This website uses cookies. When you browse on this site, you agree to the use of cookies.