Editorial process and peer-review

Each article submitted to the Yearbook of the Center for Research and Political Studies follows the steps outlined below:

1. Technical review

Upon receipt, the manuscript is evaluated to ensure compliance with the editorial guidelines published on the journal’s website. This review covers aspects such as length, formatting, author bios, appropriate use of references, and proper anonymization. Additionally, the text will be scanned using anti-plagiarism software to verify originality and adherence to ethical citation practices.

If the manuscript does not meet the editorial requirements, it will be rejected and the authors will be notified so they may revise the manuscript and resubmit it through the journal’s editorial management system (OJS). In case of a second non-compliance, the manuscript will be definitively rejected. If plagiarism or self-plagiarism is detected, the article will be excluded from the editorial process without possibility of revision.

2. Preliminary review by the Editorial Director

Once the manuscript passes the technical review, it enters a preliminary assessment conducted by the Editorial Director or a designated member of the Editorial Board. This stage, which lasts a maximum of two weeks, can result in one of the following recommendations:

• Reject the manuscript due to insufficient quality or lack of thematic alignment with the journal
• Approve the manuscript for peer review under a double-blind modality

3. External peer review (double-blind)

This academic journal applies a double-blind peer review process to all submitted articles. Following the editorial recommendation, qualified specialists are invited to evaluate the manuscript. Invitees are given five business days to respond (accept or decline). If there is no response, a second reminder is sent for an additional five business days. If there is still no response, other specialists will be contacted until two confirmed reviewers are secured.

Reviewers are granted four weeks to complete their evaluation, starting from the acceptance date. In certain cases, this period may be extended to six or eight weeks based on availability. If delays occur, reminders are sent; persistent lack of response will result in reassignment to another reviewer.

4. Peer review evaluation

Upon receiving at least two reviews, the Editorial Director decides—based on their recommendations—whether to accept the manuscript (with or without revisions), reject it, or refer it to a third reviewer if the evaluations are contradictory. The following matrix outlines possible outcomes:

Reviewer # 1	Reviewer # 2	Resolution
Reject	Reject	Final rejection
Accept without changes	Accept without changes	Accepted as is
Accept without changes	Reject	Sent to third review (final and non-appealable decision)
Accept without changes	Accept with minor or major changes	Conditional acceptance: comments must be addressed prior to publication
Reject	Accept with changes	Final rejection
Accept with changes	Accept with changes	The Editorial Director decides between rejection, third review or author revisions

If revisions are requested, authors will have 20 business days to resubmit the corrected manuscript.

5. Editing process

Once the manuscript is accepted, it enters the editing phase, which may include translation (if necessary), copyediting, layout, and XML tagging for metadata collection. Upon completion of each stage, authors will be consulted for their approval.

6. Publication

After the editorial process concludes, the article will be published online in the current issue of the Anuario del Centro de Investigación y Estudios Políticos.