Peer Review Process

Peer Review

The peer review process is managed under criteria of confidentiality, impartiality and timeliness. Persons invited to review a text must withdraw when they identify a conflict of interest, treat the material received confidentially, and base their observations on the intellectual content of the work. The editorial team will always seek to ensure the coherence and transparency of the process, and to resolve discrepancies between reviews with sound editorial judgment.

Articles Section

First stage

All manuscripts submitted for the Dossier, Debates and Articles sections through the journal's management system (OJS – Open Journal System) will be acknowledged by the system itself if the submission process was successful. The works received are evaluated in a first stage by the Editorial Team in order to assess whether the topic addressed fits the scope declared by the journal, compliance with academic writing standards, and the requirements set out in the “Guidelines for Authors.” If these requirements are not met, the contributions are rejected.

Second stage

When the first evaluation is positive, the date of receipt of the article is recorded and two external referees specializing in the relevant field of knowledge are appointed to judge the quality of the work. The evaluation system adopted by the journal is single-blind for the Dossier and Debates sections (the anonymity of the authors is preserved) and double-blind for the Articles section (the anonymity of both the authors and the reviewers is preserved). It should be noted that, for the Dossier, it is the Editorial Team that establishes certain criteria such as the number of articles, and regional, linguistic and gender representativeness.

In evaluating the articles, those acting as reviewers follow a guide provided by the journal, with evaluation criteria that consider the text's contribution to the field of social sciences and humanities, its theoretical-methodological aspects, its argumentative style, and discursive issues relating to the form of the text.

The reviewers' verdict includes four possibilities:

  1. Accepted without changes.
  2. Accepted subject to minor changes.
  3. Accepted subject to substantive changes (in this case, the text is evaluated again by a specialist in the field).
  4. Rejected (the manuscript is returned to the author, together with the reviewers' reports).

Editorial decisions based on the reports

Once the two peer reviewers' reports have been received, the Editorial Committee will analyze the recommendations and determine the outcome of the evaluation process. The article may be accepted, accepted with modifications, or rejected, in accordance with the assessment made by the reviewers and the journal's editorial criteria.

When the article is accepted with modifications, those who submitted it will be informed of the requested changes and the deadline set for submitting a new version. If the evaluation result falls into category 2, the new version must be submitted within no more than 10 days and will be reviewed by the Editorial Committee. If it falls into category 3, the new version must be submitted within no more than 30 days and will be sent back to the expert reviewer to assess the incorporation of the requested modifications. Up to two rounds of evaluation may be carried out. In the second round, the reviewer or the Editorial Committee, as applicable, will determine whether the modifications made allow the article to move toward acceptance or whether substantive issues remain that prevent its publication.

When both initial reports fall into category 3, the Editorial Committee will comprehensively analyze the evaluations and determine whether the article can continue in the editorial process. This decision will especially take into account the nature and scope of the requested modifications. If the Committee considers that incorporating them implies a substantive reformulation that significantly affects the structure, arguments or central contributions of the article, it may decide to reject the work and conclude the evaluation process.

If the results of the first review are contradictory, the contribution is sent for a third round of arbitration in order to confirm, expand or modify the previous reports. The Editorial Committee evaluates the results of the process and makes the decision it considers appropriate.

Once the work has been accepted, the authors are informed of the volume and issue number in which it will be published, and the author(s) must send their acceptance of the transfer of rights and make the formal and stylistic modifications required to meet academic writing standards.

The Editorial Team is responsible for copyediting and formal aspects of each work. It is also responsible for producing the HTML and PDF versions for publication on the OJS and on the journal's website, https://www.clacso.org/tramas-y-redes/

The time elapsed between receipt of the article and completion of the external evaluation process is estimated to range between 90 (ninety) and 120 (one hundred and twenty) days. The time between receipt and publication is 12 (twelve) to 18 (eighteen) months, depending on the flow of articles in the journal.