Evaluation and publication process

1. The author send his or her proposal to Anuario del Centro de Investigación y Estudios Políticos. Reception of the proposal does not imply a guarantee of publication.
2. The proposal is subject to preliminary evaluation by the Director. This evaluation will focus on: a) academic pertinence of the article, b) compliance with the documentation requirements, c) compliance with inclusive language policies defined in section X of our Editorial Guidelines and d) compliance with our originality and plagiarism check.
3. Based on the results of the preliminary evaluation, the Direct will accept or reject the proposal for further consideration. In both cases, the Director will inform the Editorial Council of his or her determination.
4. Excepting cases that fail to comply to section IX regarding originality, proposals that fail the preliminary evaluation may be corrected and re-sent within five working days of receiving the determination.
5. If errors persist in a second submission, the proposal will be rejected and will not be eligible for additional submissions.
6. The proposals that pass the preliminary evaluation will be sent to external peer-review, using a double-blind methodology.
7. The author will be notified by writing of the result of the evaluation. Peer-reviewers may only offer one of the following criteria: a) accepted without modifications, b) accepted with modification and c) not accepted.
8. If the article is approved with modifications by the peer reviewers, the author will be required to send a new version of the proposal alongside a document including the changes made to the original. This will be done within a span of 20 working days. Compliance with the evaluations will be verified by the Editorial Council.
9. In case that peer-reviewers offer non-conclusive or contradictory recommendations, the Director will ask for a third evaluation with an external peer-reviewer to break the tie. If the majority of peer-reviewers considers the article accepted with modifications, the author will be required to follow the procedure described in point 7 of this list.
10. Peer-review evaluations will be considered by the Editorial Council, which will make the final decision. The Editorial Counicl may delegate final decision to the director of the Journal whenever it considers it oportune and only through explicit agreement.
11. The determination of the Editorial Council not accepting an article after peer review inhibits the author to re-send the article to the journal.
12. Proposals that have been approved by the Editorial Council will be subjected to proof-style corrections. In this stage, authors will be required to answer all questions and comments made by the editors of this journal.
13. Having concluded the proof corrections stage, the article will go through the publishing stage. After a final consultation with the author, the article will be published on line.

Peer review

This journal evaluates each research article proposal through a peer review process using a “double blind” method. All research article proposals will be initially reviewed by the Director to determine their correspondence to with the themes of the magazine. Afterwards, proposals will be sent to a minimum of two external and independent reviewers to evaluate the scientific quality of the proposal. There would be a maximum of two review rounds. Lastly, the Editorial Council is responsible of the final decision to accept or reject the publication of the articles.

The Anuario del Centro de Investigación y Estudios Políticos uses a double-blind review process, meaning that the identity of the authors is concealed from the peer-reviewers and vice versa. To facilitate this process, authors should remove all information that could be use for their identification from the text of their articles. This includes all references to previous publications. The references will be corrected if the articles is accepted for publication.

To know more about this issue, please check our Editorial Guidelines here.