Peer Review

The aspects that are taken into consideration to evaluate an article, review or report are all those indicated in the Guidelines section.

1. Stages of the editorial process

The formal evaluation process begins when a person uploads a manuscript to the Revista de Educación Religiosa OJS.

a) For articles:
  • • Once the texts have been received, the editors will assess compliance with the basic requirements within two weeks.
  • • Whether approved or rejected, the primary contact author will receive a notification.
  • • If approved, the document will go to peer review. Peer review consists of a process in which an analysis of the quality of the manuscripts proposed to the Revista de Educación Religiosa by their respective authors is carried out. The peers will be experts in the subject matter of an individual manuscript, with skills like those of the authors.
  • • This evaluation will be both methodological and content-based and will be carried out with a “double-blind” system, following an evaluation guideline that has been established by the Committee based on the aspects indicated in the Guidelines.
  • • The editorial decision will be made by the Editor based on peer reviews. This decision can be of four types:
    • ‣ Acceptance without comments,
    • ‣ acceptance with minor comments (does not require new peer review),
    • ‣ acceptance with comments (requires new peer review), or
    • ‣ rejection.
  • • The decision will be communicated within a maximum period of four weeks to the author (or main contact) by email.
  • • If the article requires changes, the authors have a period of two weeks to make the requested modifications and upload the new version of the article to the platform. Once the minor changes have been evaluated by the Editor or by new peer review, as indicated by the peer reviewers, the author (or main contact) will be informed by email about the result of the process.
  • • In order to optimizing the article, the editors reserve the decision on style correction in cases where it is considered necessary.
b) For reviews and reports:
  • • The editors will review compliance with the requested characteristics and will communicate with the author if any correction is necessary.
  • • The editors reserve the decision on style correction in cases where it is considered necessary.

2. Deadlines

The editorial team agrees with the authors to meet the following deadlines:

  1. a) Preliminary review of manuscripts received within ten business days, responding if their work is formally suitable for evaluation and, consequently, return it for correction or proceed with its evaluation.
  2. b) Carry out the arbitration process within five weeks, counted from when the work is in formal conditions to be evaluated. At the end of this period, the author will be informed if the manuscript will be published, if it will not be published or if it requires corrections to be published.
  3. c) Publish the approved manuscripts within the predefined RER deadlines (May and October).

3. Peer review

a) Conflicts of interests

It is pertinent that, before confirming the requested evaluation, the reviewer indicates:

    • • Do you have references or assumptions about who would be the author or authors of the text that is sent to you?
    • • The eventual closeness or knowledge of the author or authors, would affect your impartiality to proceed?
    • • Do you have any relationship with activities or people that could affect your objectivity in reviewing the manuscript?
b) Forms

Our reviewers apply the following guidelines: