Peer Review Policy
Peer review process
The works received may belong to three sections: Articles, Reviews and Documents; There may also be a special Dossier that integrates several articles on the same topic, which will be properly presented by the coordinating researcher. In all cases, they must be unpublished and original works that represent a contribution to scientific knowledge.
The articles received will be submitted to the opinion of the Editorial Committee with the support of the Advisory Council, made up of specialists from Argentina and abroad, who are external to the Institution. There it will be considered whether the work conforms to the purposes stated by the magazine and complies with the explicit regulations. If it does not meet these requirements, the contributions will be rejected. When the first evaluation is positive, two external referees who are specialists in the area are chosen to judge the quality of the work. The evaluation system adopted by the journal is double blind (the anonymity of the authors and evaluators is preserved). In the event of disputes during the evaluation, the work shall be submitted to a third referee. The authors will be informed of the results of the evaluations, as well as the observations or recommendations of the observers. The evaluation period will not exceed two months and will be recorded in a form specially issued by the magazine. Likewise, the dates of reception and final approval of the work will be specified in each publication.
Based on the opinions of the two secret evaluators, the final decision of publication will be made by the Editorial Committee, which reserves the right to determine the number of the journal in which the positively evaluated and approved works must be published after their due corrections.
The opinions expressed by the authors reflect their personal criteria and the journal is not responsible for them. The acceptance of the manuscript by the journal implies no simultaneous submission to other journals or editorial bodies. The authors of the published articles transfer their rights to the publisher, on a non-exclusive basis, to incorporate the digital version of the same into the Institutional Repository of the Universidad Católica Argentina, the OJS system, as well as other databases it considers of academic relevance.
Article review form
Internal Review
The internal review of the Editorial Committee takes into account the following parameters:
- Does the work comply with the journal's editorial standards? Record each of these items (answer yes, no, partially, or describe specifically when needed):
* Has abstracts in Spanish and English:
* Contains Keywords:
* You have the requested author/s information:
* You have correctly followed the forms of bibliographical citation:
* Has spelling errors:
* The key words are correct:
*Does it have an introduction? (Which indicates the main objective at least):
* The maximum number of words is respected:
- Does the text present errors/wording problems that are obvious? (e.g. excessive repetition of words, incorrect uses of verbal tenses, names or words misspelled/misused, etc.)
- Is the wording of the text clear and allows the meaning to be understood without difficulty?
- Is the work a contribution to the specific field in which it is presented?
- Have the authors presented this work in other publication media? (Indicate yes/no/partially and leave comments if necessary).
- Is the work within the editorial line of Temas?
- Which evaluators do you recommend for it (cite at least 3 and add their email as far as possible)
- What is your recommendation regarding sending the work to an external evaluator.
* Accept it as is and send it for evaluation.
* Resend it to the author for reform and then restart the internal evaluation [detail as thoroughly as possible what aspects should be reformed]
* Send it to the author for reform and then start the internal evaluation
*Do not accept it under any conditions
External Review
In the external review by peer evaluators, they are consulted on the following aspects:
1- Is the work an original and relevant contribution to the specific topic it analyzes? (yes/no/partially/Does not find interest because it is a sufficiently well-known topic/Does not have interest from a theoretical or methodological point of view). Justify your answer, indicate modifications to be made
2- How do you evaluate the writing and structure of the article? (Correct/Incorrect/There is internal consistency/There is no internal consistency/Confusing writing - needs style revision/Imprecise terms/Other:) Justify your answer, indicate modifications to be made
3- What is your opinion on the methodology and sources used in the article? (adequate/inadequate/other) Justify your answer, indicate modifications to be made
4- What is the quality and adequacy of the bibliographic references? (Very High/High/Medium/Low/Very low) Justify your answer, indicate bibliography to incorporate/reduce
5- Do you have comments for the editors? (yes/no) Expand your answer
In summary: What is your recommendation regarding the publication of this work? (highlight in bold or with a cross what is appropriate).
- a) Accept it without requesting any type of changes or making suggestions.
- b) Accept it without substantial changes. The author is only recommended to take into account some suggestions listed in the previous points. Future external evaluations of the article will not be necessary (the author's good judgment is trusted).
- c) Accept it conditionally, the author should revise the work according to the suggestions made. The evaluation of such changes will be the responsibility of the Editorial Committee. The author must send a report to the Editorial Committee explaining the changes made based on the evaluations received.
- d) Accept it conditionally, the author should revise the work according to the suggestions made. The evaluation of such changes will be the responsibility of the evaluator. The author must send a report that accounts for the changes made to the work to be sent to the external evaluators.
- f) Reject it. Please expand the reasons for the rejection below.
Do you have any other recommendations or comments? Expand below
