Reviewer guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to Investigación y Praxis en Ciencias Sociales are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. We adopt a double-blind peer review model, ensuring the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. The comments, carefully crafted by reviewers like you, are crucial for the editors when making decisions about the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.

Reviewer Selection:

In Investigación y Praxis en Ciencias Sociales, when selecting reviewers, we ensure that they meet the following criteria:

  • Have adequate experience to evaluate the manuscript.
  • Possess relevant academic qualifications, typically holding a doctoral degree.
  • Have expertise in the specific subject area of the manuscript.
  • Have no conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

Reviewers who accept to review a manuscript are responsible for:

  • Declaring any conflicts of interest before starting the review.
  • Declining a review invitation promptly if they are unavailable, and, if possible, suggesting alternative reviewers.
  • Completing the review and submitting the report within the established deadline.
  • Evaluating the manuscript impartially, providing a detailed report with specific comments.
  • Reporting any suspected misconduct to the editors for further investigation.
  • Maintaining the confidentiality of assigned manuscripts.

To ensure an efficient peer review process and a smooth editorial workflow, we kindly ask reviewers to take a few minutes to read the following guidelines.

 

Punctuality in Response

Timely communication between the journal Investigación y Praxis en Ciencias Sociales and the reviewers is essential to ensure an objective, fair, and timely review of the manuscripts. Potential reviewers are expected to:

  1. Accept or decline an invitation to review a manuscript promptly, based on the title and abstract provided.
  2. Submit their review within the agreed deadline. If, for any reason, they cannot meet this deadline or require an extension, they must notify the journal as soon as possible.
  3. If unable to review, it is appreciated if they suggest other reviewers with the relevant expertise, if possible.

Possible Conflicts of Interest

It is crucial for reviewers to provide impartial and transparent feedback. Before starting the review, reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest related to the manuscript. These may be personal, professional, economic, political, or ideological in nature. If there is any doubt about the existence of a conflict of interest that may affect impartiality, the reviewer must inform the journal and seek guidance.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the peer review process. No part of the manuscript should be used or distributed, in whole or in part, before the article is officially published. Additionally, reviewers must ensure that their identity is not revealed to the authors at any time.

It is important that each reviewer prepares their own report and does not impersonate others during the review process. If a reviewer wishes to include someone else in the review, they must obtain prior authorization from the journal's editorial office. The names of any collaborators in the review process must be mentioned at the end of the review report.

Suspicions of Ethical Misconduct

If reviewers suspect any form of misconduct in the research (e.g., evident similarities with prior works or manuscripts submitted to other journals simultaneously), they should notify the editorial office for further investigation. Any ethical concerns should be communicated directly to the journal via email.

Rigorous Evaluation for Reviewers

To ensure a thorough and fair evaluation of the manuscripts, reviewers are asked to complete an evaluation form that addresses the following key aspects:

  1. Authenticity and Originality: The results presented must be the authors' original contribution, with no plagiarism or data manipulation. New ideas, approaches, or discoveries are highly valued.

  2. Relevance and Impact: The manuscript must address topics of interest and relevance to the academic community in the field of social sciences, contributing to the advancement of knowledge.

  3. Scientific Rigor: The study's design and execution must align with recognized scientific standards. Conclusions should be supported by solid evidence, and the methodology should be clear and reproducible.

  4. Ethics in Research: The study must have been conducted according to ethical principles, especially when involving human subjects, animals, or other sensitive research areas.

  5. Language Quality: The manuscript must be written clearly and accurately, free from grammatical or spelling errors, to ensure effective communication.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback to help improve the quality and relevance of the manuscripts. Editorial decisions will be made after careful consideration of all reviewer comments, ensuring a fair and transparent editorial process.