Information for reviewers

Information to reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

The journal aims to disseminate and contribute to historiographical production at different academic levels. To guarantee the integrity and quality of the publications, we count on the collaboration of reviewers who may be masters, doctoral students and doctors. This approach includes double-blind assessment, which ensures commitment to academic excellence through careful and professional assessment.

Reviewers must adhere to the following ethical guidelines:

Avoid conflicts of interest related to the research or the funding agencies of the article. If they identify any conflict, they must refuse the indication for the evaluation of the manuscript.

Review the manuscript objectively and constructively, respecting the stipulated deadline. It is essential to avoid hostile or disrespectful comments.

Maintain the confidentiality of all information provided by the editor or author.

Not to use the information obtained during the review process for your own benefit, that of third parties, or to harm or discredit others involved.

In addition, it is important that reviewers:

Do all the work through the OJS system. Be sure to complete your registrations in a complete and accurate manner, paying attention to the steps required for proper evaluation of the articles. During the registration process, please indicate the option to be a reviewer and fill out your profiles with relevant information, such as your domain area and interest. Also, it is important to enter your ORCID and the link to your academic resume. This information is extremely important to better target the articles to be evaluated and to guarantee the quality and efficiency of the review process. Therefore, we ask for your cooperation when registering in the OJS system.

Notify the editor of any previously published or submitted content that is substantially similar to the work under review. It is important to note that the journal uses CopySpider software to detect plagiarism.

Identify and point out the correctable flaws in the article, offering constructive suggestions to solve them. It is recommended to evaluate the cost-benefit of each requested change in relation to the effective improvement of the quality of the work. If relevant, provide updated references from the last five years or relevant to the work and/or its reformulation.

In order to expedite the editorial process, they should strive to point out all the necessary changes already in the first revision of the work, avoiding additional recommendations with each return of the reformulated manuscript.

If they identify incorrigible flaws, indicate them as limitations of the article in the appropriate section or, if publication is unfeasible, recommend rejection, justifying the reasons that make the flaws insurmountable.

We emphasize that the integrity and quality of academic publications are the result of the joint and committed work of the reviewers. Mutual trust between all parties involved is reflected in the success of the editorial process.

We sincerely thank you for your contribution to the excellence of our journal.