Peer Review Process

The diagram of the review process:


The system Double-blind peer review preserving the anonymity of the authors and assessors throughout the process are reviewed. 

The reviews (free shipping) and essays (by invitation) will be indexed and reviewed by the editorial team. 

The review process is carried articles with software Open Journal System (OJS) that ensures automated and auditable electronic record of all interactions. This is a transparent process that enables the improvement of the texts where publication is viable. 

The review process takes an average of 3-6 weeks, unless incidents. Evaluators receive the request for evaluation with a suggested term commitment is requested to avoid delays. 

The review process is agreed with the other communication journals associated with Latin Platform of Communication Journals (PlatCom).

This journal uses Open Journal Systems, which is open source journal management and publishing software developed, supported, and freely distributed by the Public Knowledge Project under the GNU General Public License.

The review criteria are also shared with the other members magazines Magazines Communication Platform. 

The criteria are: originality, novelty, currency, interest, quality and methodological rigor and relevance. 

In short, when the text is received, the designated person editorial board performs a desk review to check fit the theme of the magazine and the formal rules. Once accepted, the editorial team omit information about the authors and sent to two reviewers doctors, experts in the field, not belonging to the institution of origin of the authors. When two positive reports are obtained, it shall notify the author was formally revised, model and proceed to the publication of the article, otherwise it is rejected giving reasons. The author can always exercise their right of complaint in writing to the editor of the magazine. 

Interactions editor-author: acknowledgment of the text, transfer of rights and ethical commitment; Shipping acceptance for review; double evaluation results; Posted statement; invitation to broadcast networks and other strategies. 

Interactions editor-reviewer: application for review with suggestions of term; acknowledgment of acceptance of the review and shipping documentation and access to the electronic platform for revision; acknowledgment of the evaluation; whether the editorial decision is "publication with major modifications" text forwarding grinding at the same evaluator and request second report; certification of collaboration.