Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to post(s), with the exception of those sent to the Videre section, undergo a double-blind peer review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the entire editorial process.

This process ensures impartiality and objectivity in the evaluation of each manuscript, preventing institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, or ethnicity from influencing the review. Accordingly, the editorial team guarantees that the editorial process remains free from any form of discrimination or violence.

The peer review process at post(s) is designed to assess the academic quality of each manuscript, with particular attention to methodology, argumentation, critical reflection, conclusions, and the contribution each submission makes to its respective field of knowledge.

Participants in the Process

The peer review process is overseen by the Editor-in-Chief of post(s), who ensures that the objectives and review standards (outlined in this section) are met. The process is managed by the journal’s Editorial Coordinator through the editorial workflow of the OJS platform.

Guest editors for each issue participate in the selection of external reviewers for each manuscript. They also propose qualified experts who can contribute specialized knowledge to the evaluation and strengthening of the submissions.

The editorial team selects academics and professionals from the fields of the humanities, social sciences, and the arts, holding at least a master’s degree, to serve as expert reviewers for each manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic background, expertise, and research trajectory in the relevant subject area. All reviewers are expected to comply with the responsibilities outlined in the post(s) Code of Ethics and Publication.

Stages of the Review Process

All manuscripts must be submitted to post(s) through the OJS submission system (under the Submissions section). Only submissions made through this platform will be considered for entry into the different stages of the editorial workflow.

1. Initial Evaluation

After the call for papers closes, the editorial team, together with the guest editor, conducts a preliminary review of all submitted manuscripts. At this stage, submissions are assessed for their compliance with the journal’s author guidelines and submission checklist.

Manuscripts that meet these criteria proceed to the next stage of the editorial process. Those that do not meet these requirements will be rejected.

2. Peer Review Evaluation

Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation proceed to the double-blind peer review stage. A minimum of two reviewers are assigned, who are given up to two months to complete their evaluations.

Reviewers conduct their evaluations through the OJS platform, where they must register with a user account under the role of “external reviewer” or “reader” and access the assigned submission. All stages of the evaluation process are carried out within the platform using standardized review forms.

The evaluation forms include the following categories:

Each category is assessed on a scale ranging from “poor” to “excellent,” allowing for the evaluation of the manuscript’s originality, academic contribution, methodological rigor, and thematic relevance.

Additionally, reviewers are provided with two open-text sections in which they are expected to substantiate their evaluation and contribute to the editorial development of the manuscript, when appropriate. These sections have no word limit and include the following prompts:

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editorial team may recommend one of the following decisions:

In cases where revisions are required, authors will receive the reviewers’ comments while preserving the double-blind review system at all times. Peer feedback provides guidance for editing and includes both formal and substantive recommendations.

3. Review Reports and Editorial Decision

Once reviewers complete their evaluations, their recommendations are formally recorded. The editorial team assesses the reviewers’ reports, weighing and balancing the evaluations. The Editor-in-Chief, together with the guest editor, makes the final decision.

In cases of divergent evaluations, a third reviewer may be invited to provide additional expertise to guide the final editorial decision.

If discrepancies arise between reviewers and one of the evaluations raises concerns grounded in the journal’s Code of Ethics and Publication, these will be addressed in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

4. Notification of Decision

Authors receive notification of the editorial decision through the OJS platform. If the manuscript is invited to continue in the publication process, authors will receive instructions regarding the next steps.

When revisions are required, authors will receive anonymized reviewer comments, ensuring the integrity of the double-blind review process. Peer feedback provides guidance for revision and includes both formal and substantive recommendations aimed at strengthening the manuscript.

5. Subsequent Steps in the Editorial Process

Authors must submit a revised version of their manuscript incorporating the requested changes within a period of two to four weeks. The editorial team will assess the adequacy of the revisions and the overall quality of the resubmitted version. If the revisions are deemed insufficient, the manuscript will not be published. Final decisions regarding publication are made by the editorial team of post(s).

If the manuscript is approved by both the editorial team and the guest editors, it proceeds to the subsequent stages of the editorial process:

  1. Second editorial review
  2. Copyediting
  3. Layout and design
  4. Final editorial review
  5. Author approval
  6. Publication