Reviewing Process

Review Invitation

You will be invited by the Editorial Board to review some particular manuscript via e-mail or to be part of the scientific committee, which can be kindly rejected or accepted. In order to fullfil the revision, you should be part of our submission system as a reviewer. You can log in or register in our website:  http://campus.usal.es/~revistas_trabajo/index.php/2255-2863/login

Note that the deadline for the review submission will be 3 weeks since the acceptation of the invitation. Exceptionally, this time can be extended if the editorial board considers appropriate to do so. The review should be submitted to our platform in order to preserve anonimicity (blind review). The instructions to conduct for the review can be found here.

Communicating Your Report to the Editor

Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to write up your report. As a courtesy, let the editor know if it looks like you might miss your deadline.

Some journals may request that you complete a form, checking various aspects of the paper, others will request an overview of your remarks. Either way, it is helpful to provide a quick summary of the article at the beginning of your report. This serves the dual purpose of reminding the editor of the details of the report and also reassuring the author and editor that you have understood the article.

The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentary should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.

When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article.

a) Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope
b) Accept without revision
c) Accept but needs revision (either major or minor). Clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article.