Peer Review Policy

Double blind peer review system

Three reviewers will be assigned by articles, who must be PhD experts in the subject they will evaluate (respecting academic and scientific parity). It will be respected that more than 50% of these reviewers will be external to the Editorial Board and Editorial Entity (See reviewer statistics). They will evaluate the articles confidentially and anonymously (blind). Thus, the authors do not know the identity of their reviewers, just as the reviewers will not know the identity of the authors.

Criteria for selection of reviewers. Three reviewers are selected according to their area of specialization (which guarantees a value judgment based on expert knowledge of the subject matter). On the other hand, the reviewers are external to the author's institution, as well as to the committees and editorial bodies of the journal. The list of reviewers is public in a range determined by the last three previous years.

They will use for their report the form for reviewers and one of the following decisions will be issued:

Accept submission (Publishable without modifications)
Publishable with modifications
Reject submission

In view of the external reports, the acceptance/rejection of the articles for publication will be decided, as well as the introduction, if necessary, of the appropriate modifications, in terms of length, structure or style, respecting the content of the original.

Duration of the manuscript review process: Maximun time taken by the reviewers of the Revista Latina de Comunicación Social is 90 days. The editor will send the author the summary of the review report received anonymously, as well as the recommendations (if any) for modification of the article, or failing that, the decision to reject the manuscript together with the review reports.

The author will have 7 days to submit the corrected manuscript to the editor together with a justification of those discrepancies that lead to the non-modification of one or more of the aspects pointed out by the reviewers, if any. If the author considers that there has been an error in the evaluation or requires additional clarification, he/she may contact the Editorial Committee to request a review of the process.

Once the manuscript has been definitively accepted, the editor will communicate the editorial decision to the authors, providing them with instructions on how to pay for the translation and layout of the manuscript, a requirement for publication.

Article evaluation and review guidelines

The review process developed by RLCS follows its ethics code. For authors to apply to RLCS implies full acceptance of this code of ethics and compliance with these guidelines for evaluation and review.

The first step in the review and evaluation of articles is carried out by the Editorial Committee, which performs an initial anonymous review to verify that the article complies with the characteristics, quality requirements and thematic lines of the journal.

Articles that pass this first review go on to the second review, carried out by Academy doctors, which consists of submitting the text to three anonymous evaluations (blind peer review). In case of discrepancy between reviewers, a new one will be assigned to decide. The reviewers' recommendations must be incorporated into the revised text or, alternatively, the authors must provide a scientific justification for their omission. If this justification is not accepted by the affected reviewers and the designated member of the Editorial Committee, the suggested modifications will become mandatory. Failure to comply with these requirements will result in the article not being published.

In accordance with the RLCS code of ethics, the evaluators will review the work with criteria of independence, objectivity, responsibility and absence of conflict of interest, scrupulously and exclusively following academic values according to their fair judgment, observing that the texts comply with the formal and ethical requirements demanded by the RLCS.

To prevent plagiarism issues, RLCS runs all texts through an anti-plagiarism software, with the resulting report initially analyzed by the Editorial Committee and made available to reviewers upon request. Reviewers may also conduct their own checks using free tools such as Grammarly, Google, Ephorus, etc.

Revista Latina de Comunicación Social adheres to the COPE Ethical Framework, following its core practices in editorial ethics.

Editorial decision. The criteria for acceptance or rejection of papers are as follows:

Acceptance criteria

Thematic Scope of the Journal: The article must align with the research areas covered by the journal and provide relevant content for its readers.
Scientific Level of the Authors: The academic trajectory of the authors is assessed, considering their presence in international indexes and their research category.
Coherence with Historical Research Lines: The proposal must be in line with the topics and approaches that the journal has developed in previous editions.
Originality of the Manuscript: The article is expected to contribute new ideas, innovative approaches, or original results that represent an advancement in knowledge.
External Support and Funding: The existence of financial backing, whether public or private, can be an indicator of the study’s robustness and relevance.
Co-authorship and Degree of Internationalization: Collaboration among researchers from different institutions and countries is positively valued, as it enhances diversity and global impact.
Compliance with Journal Guidelines: The manuscript must adhere to the editorial guidelines in terms of structure, style, citation, and format.
Scientific Reliability and Validity: The methodological rigor is evaluated to ensure that the data is reliable, reproducible, and that the applied techniques are appropriate.
Quality of Results and Conclusions: The findings must be well-founded and coherent with the stated objectives, offering a significant impact in the field.
Clarity of Language and Good Writing: An article should be well-written, using clear and precise language, free of grammatical or typographical errors.
Proper Structure and Well-Presented Data: The text must be logically organized, following the structure (Introduction, Methodology, Results, and Discussion), with well-designed tables and figures.
Use of Updated References and Low Proportion of Self-Citations: The sources used are expected to be recent and relevant, avoiding an excessive number of self-citations that could bias the research.
Ethical Conduct in Research: Compliance with ethical principles in data collection, authorship, and adherence to scientific publishing standards must be ensured.

Manuscript rejection criteria

Topic outside the scope of the journal: If the article does not align with the journal's editorial focus, it will be rejected without being evaluated.
Lack of academic relevance of the authors: If the authors do not have a recognized scientific trajectory in the field of study, it may affect the credibility of the work.
Disconnection from the journal's historical interests: If the article does not relate to the themes and discussions previously developed by the journal.
Lack of originality: Articles that do not present novel ideas or that duplicate previous studies without added value will be rejected.
Lack of financial support in research that requires it: If the study relies on costly data collection or experiments and lacks sufficient funding, doubts about its rigor may arise.
Lack of international collaboration: A manuscript with a poorly diversified team of authors or without external collaborations may reduce its impact.
Failure to comply with editorial guidelines: If the manuscript does not follow the journal's guidelines regarding structure, citation, and formatting.
Methodological deficiencies: If the research presents errors in experimental design, data collection, or data analysis.
Weak results or unsupported conclusions: If the findings are not backed by data or are inconsistent with the stated objectives.
Writing problems and poor language quality: Grammatical errors, lack of clarity, or ambiguities may affect the readability of the article.
Inadequate structure and poor data presentation: If the article does not follow a clear academic format or presents low-quality graphs/tables.
Excessive self-citations or outdated references: If the article does not support its arguments with recent and relevant bibliography.
Failure to meet ethical standards: If there is plagiarism, data manipulation, undeclared conflicts of interest, or other breaches of scientific integrity.

 Once the evaluation process has been completed, the main author will be notified of the acceptance or rejection of the work. The contact author will be informed in case of rejection of the submitted manuscript, attaching the full report of the reviewers anonymously, along with the reasons for the editorial decision. Each editorial decision will be accompanied by a detailed justification based on the reviewers' reports, indicating the key aspects that have led to the acceptance, request for modifications or rejection of the manuscript.