Peer Review Evaluation Form

 

Perspectivas Metodológicas subjects submissions to the Articles, Perspectives, Research, and Dossier sections to a double-blind peer-review process. Reviews are conducted by external specialists selected according to the subject area of the manuscript.

The following form sets out the criteria used by reviewers during the evaluation process.

Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Statement

Before beginning the evaluation, reviewers must declare that they have no financial, intellectual, or personal conflicts of interest in relation to the manuscript and undertake to maintain the confidentiality of its content throughout the review process.

Evaluation Criteria

  1. Compliance with Submission Guidelines
    Reviewers assess compliance with the editorial guidelines of Perspectivas Metodológicas, the clarity and precision of the presentation, the organization of the manuscript, and adherence to APA Style, 7th edition, for citations and references.
  2. Academic Relevance
    Reviewers consider the relevance of the manuscript to the academic community and its contribution to the subject area in which it is situated.
  3. Theoretical Foundation and Literature Review
    Reviewers assess the relevance, depth, and currency of the theoretical framework and its articulation with the problem addressed in the manuscript.
  4. Methodological Quality
    Where applicable, reviewers consider the appropriateness of the methodological approach and design, the techniques employed, data collection and analysis procedures, and the presentation of results.
  5. Bibliographic Sources
    Reviewers assess the relevance, sufficiency, currency, and academic appropriateness of the sources used.
  6. Title, Abstract, and Keywords
    Reviewers consider the correspondence between the title, abstract, keywords, and the content developed in the manuscript.
  7. Tables, Figures, and Graphs
    Where applicable, reviewers assess their relevance, clarity, quality, and contribution to the understanding of the manuscript.

For each criterion, reviewers are provided with a space to make observations, justify their assessment, and suggest any revisions they consider necessary.

Final Recommendation

Upon completion of the review, reviewers must provide one of the following editorial recommendations:

  • Publish without revisions.
  • Publish with minor revisions.
  • Publish subject to substantive revisions or improvements in presentation.
  • Publish only after major revisions.
  • Do not publish.

When the recommendation is Do not publish, the decision must be properly justified. Reasons may include, among others, insufficient academic quality, originality concerns, conceptual inconsistencies, theoretical weaknesses, methodological errors, or substantial problems in argumentation or presentation.

Review reports are confidential and constitute an advisory input for the final decision of the Editorial Committee.