Peer Review

Peer review policy

Articles submitted to Nova Scientia will be peer-reviewed. Previously, a reading and a "pertinence" review will be carried out to evaluate the adequacy to the journal's policies and guidelines. At this stage, the document will also be evaluated to ensure that it complies with the guidelines of the format and the template for articles, available in Word for downloading.

Format revision

In order to ensure the best visibility and the subsequent adaptation of the documents to meta-editorial marking formats, the first aspect to be analyzed will be compliance with the format stipulated in the guidelines for authors.

Relevance and originality review

The manuscript submitted will be evaluated to ensure that it complies with the journal's guidelines and adheres to its thematic specialty; type of document, and language. Then its originality will be verified: that it is unpublished, that it has not been published before, and that it is original, that it does not exceed 20% of coincidences in the anti-plagiarism review. For this review, the Turnitin anti-plagiarism software will be used.

Double-blind peer review

Relevant articles will be submitted to a double-blind peer review process. For this, an evaluation rubric has been structured, whose resulting opinions will indicate:

a) Article accepted. To be published as is.

b) Article accepted with minor corrections. Does not require a second revision.

c) Conditional article with major corrections. Requires second revision.

d) Rejected article. Does not meet the conditions for publication.

In case of controversies or disagreements argued by the reviewers in relation to their opinions, the editor will have the right to appoint a third referee to issue a final evaluation. In all cases, the publication of the manuscript will be an irrevocable decision of the editor-in-chief of the journal, who in turn will justify his decision to the Scientific Committee of the journal.

To guarantee anonymity and due to the submission scheme in force in the editorial flow of the journal, the editorial team will eliminate references to authors, financing, institutions and other data contained in the documents. The same will be done with the identity of the referees. In all cases, referees will be chosen who do not belong to institutions, networks or work groups of the authors under evaluation.

Finally, in the same sense, the authors will have the possibility of suggesting five possible referees for their text. This selection must comply with the requirement of no institutional or group overlap mentioned above.