Peer Review Process
Review model
Every manuscript submitted to Guarracuco Sostenible undergoes double-blind peer review. The identity of the authors is withheld from the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is withheld from the authors and from anyone outside the editorial process.
Stages
- Receipt. The editorial team acknowledges receipt of the manuscript and checks that it follows the author guidelines and the submission checklist.
- Preliminary editorial review. The editor checks thematic relevance, originality and compliance with formal requirements, and runs the plagiarism check. Manuscripts that do not pass this stage are rejected without external review, and the author receives the reasons.
- Assignment of reviewers. The editor appoints two external reviewers with training and experience in the field of the manuscript and with no institutional tie or recent co-authorship with the authors.
- Review. Each reviewer submits an assessment on the journal's review form, which rates relevance, originality, methodological rigour, soundness of argument, quality of sources and quality of writing on a scale of one to five, and includes a field for qualitative comments and an editorial recommendation.
- Tie-breaking. When the two assessments diverge, the editor appoints a third reviewer whose assessment guides the decision.
- Editorial decision. The editor communicates one of four decisions to the author: accept the submission, publishable with minor revisions, publishable with major revisions subject to further review, or not publishable.
- Revision by the author. The author returns the revised version together with a response letter explaining how each comment was addressed.
- Production. The accepted manuscript moves on to copyediting, layout, proofreading by the author and publication.
Timeframes
The journal commits to the following timeframes, counted in calendar days.
- Preliminary editorial review. Thirty days, about one month, from receipt of the manuscript.
- Peer review. Sixty days, about two months, from the reviewer's acceptance.
- Editorial decision. One hundred days, a little over three months, between receipt of the manuscript and communication of the decision to the author.
These timeframes may be extended when diverging assessments require a third reviewer or when the availability of specialists in the manuscript's field makes it necessary. In such cases the journal keeps the author informed of the status of the submission.
Confidentiality and conflicts of interest
A manuscript under review is a confidential document. Reviewers do not disclose, cite or use it before publication. Anyone who identifies a conflict of interest that could compromise their judgement declines the review and informs the editor.
Recognition
The journal issues a certificate of participation to its reviewers and publishes each year the list of reviewers for the period, without linking them to specific manuscripts.
