Prospectiva considers that the evaluation of manuscripts is a fundamental and unavoidable part of the publication process of a scientific journal. Also, its evaluation policy is based on some ICMJE recommendations such as timeliness, peer review and integrity, as reference criteria that supports the entire decision-making process of which manuscripts are included in the journal editions and which are not.

Likewise, in order to guarantee the greatest possible independence on the part of independent reviewers in the reading of manuscripts, the journal adopts the “double-blind” peer review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the entire process.

Now, specifically, the evaluation of manuscripts in the journal is carried out according to the following stages:

Editorial review. Manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an editorial review. This review involves checking that the authors have correctly provided the necessary documents to formalize the submission to the journal. Subsequently, the manuscript is checked using an anti-plagiarism software. If problems of originality or any potentially improper use are detected, the authors will be informed.

If no problems are found in the manuscript, the editors will evaluate whether the manuscript meets the required quality standards to be sent to a full external peer review process. In this phase, the editor examines the structure of the manuscript, the bibliography, the most relevant conceptual and methodological aspects, as well as its compliance with the thematic focus of the journal or with the specific issue to which it has been submitted. If everything is in order, the manuscript will be assigned to external reviewers; otherwise, the authors will be informed about the non-acceptance of the manuscript or about the need for corrections before moving to the next stage.

Invitation of reviewers. The journal will be responsible for identifying and inviting reviewers for each manuscript approved for review, based on their academic background, research experience, the subject area of the article, and recent relevant publications of the prospective reviewer.

The time frame for completing the review will depend on the complexity of the manuscript topic or specific circumstances that arise during the review. However, the journal will recommend a deadline of 2-4 weeks, with the possibility of extension if necessary. If a reviewer fails to deliver the requested report, the editor may reassign the manuscript to another reviewer.

Evaluation criteria. The journal uses a form designed to guide the evaluation of manuscripts (download the form here). This form allows both quantitative and qualitative assessment of the manuscript. Formal aspects such as structure, quality of language, use of figures and tables, as well as substantive elements related to theory, methodology, depth of analysis, relevance and timeliness of the bibliography, and the significance of the results or conclusions will be evaluated.

The evaluation of each manuscript will also depend on its type, whether it is an original research article, a review of the literature, a discussion article or an analysis of current trends, among other types of manuscripts defined by the journal.

Evaluation outcomes. The outcomes of a peer review process can be classified into four categories:

1) Approved without corrections

2) Approved with minor corrections (of form or format)

3) Approved with significant corrections (substantive and form)

4) Rejected

The editors will be responsible for reviewing each of the comments received and consolidating a response to the authors. Authors are free to express to the editor their disagreement with the result of the review, always based on academic or scientific arguments or evidence to support their position.

However, the journal is not obliged to reconsider its decision, although the claims will be evaluated to determine if they are justified and if it is necessary to request clarifications to the reviewers or even call a new reviewer, if the editor considers that there is some kind of bias or assessment that does not do justice to the manuscript.

Corrected versions. Once the responses of the two or three reviewers have been collected, the journal will issue a detailed result to inform the authors. Articles accepted with the condition of being corrected should be returned along with a response letter detailing the changes made and addressing each of the reviewers' comments. These corrections will be reviewed again by the reviewers, and based on their approval or final recommendations, the editor will make a final decision on the manuscript.

If a corrected manuscript still has flaws previously noted by one or more reviewers, authors will be given an additional opportunity to make corrections. If the deficiencies are not satisfactorily resolved, the manuscript may be rejected at this point. Likewise, failure to submit a corrected version within the deadlines agreed upon with the editor may result in rejection, unless an extension for corrections is requested.

Timelines. On average, the complete evaluation cycle for a manuscript that passes all phases of the process takes approximately three months. If difficulties arise in finding available reviewers or delays occur in the delivery of reports, the journal will take the necessary steps to reassign manuscripts and notify authors.

Requests, complaints or appeals. In case of disagreement with any evaluation result, the process, or any particular request, authors are asked to communicate directly with the journal mailbox. These requests will be evaluated by the editors or by the editor-in-chief and will proceed according to the analysis of each case.