Peer Review Policy

Information on the arbitration system

The works received will be subject to review, in the second phase, by at least two external evaluators with the title of Doctor, if they are members of the university; or holding a degree, in cases requiring evaluation by specialists linked to other educational levels. In any case, they will always be persons of recognised prestige in the manuscripts' subject matter.

It will be taken into account whether the reviewers belong or not to the University to which the author does, or have directed their doctoral thesis, or are members of the same research group or project.

The review system will be double blind, meaning that the identity of both the authors and reviewers is unknown on both sides.

The reviewers, following what is specified in the Guide for Evaluators, will issue a report by filling out the Evaluation Form.

The selection of reviewers is the responsibility of the journal's Editors, who take into account their academic and scientific merits, and professional experience, including those of both Spanish and international origin. The reviewers may include members of the Advisory Committee.

Separation between the reviewing function and the editorial decision

The final editorial decision on the acceptance, revision or rejection of a manuscript rests exclusively with the journal's editorial team, comprising the Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editors, convened in session for that purpose. External reviewers — including members of the Scientific Advisory Board acting in that capacity — provide evaluation reports that inform this decision, but do not participate in it and have no vote in the editorial deliberation. When a member of the Advisory Board is designated as a reviewer for a specific manuscript, they will perform that function exclusively and will be excluded from any involvement in the decision-making process concerning that article. This separation of roles will be maintained even when the Advisory Board member simultaneously holds a position within the editorial team: in such cases, they will abstain from participating in the deliberation and editorial vote on any manuscript they have evaluated as a reviewer.

Editorial team conflicts of interest

Members of the editorial team will recuse themselves from the management, evaluation and decision-making process for any manuscript in which any of the following circumstances applies: authorship or co-authorship of the submitted manuscript or of directly related works; a supervisory or co-supervisory academic relationship with any of the authors; membership of the same institution or research group as any of the signatories; and the existence of a recognisable competitive interest or scientific conflict regarding the subject matter. In such cases, the management of the manuscript will be assumed entirely by another member of the editorial team in whom none of the above circumstances apply, and the conflict will be recorded in the article's internal file. The journal reserves the right to request from authors an explicit declaration of the absence of any conflict of interest with respect to members of the editorial committee.

Stages of the editorial process

All papers sent to the journal's Editorial Board will be informed of their reception within 5 days.

The texts sent to the Articles and Pedagogical Innovation section will undergo a dual evaluation:

- Internal or preliminary evaluation, in which the group of Associate Editors will verify that the style rules are observed and that the content accords with the thematic line of the journal, and will comment on its content. At this time the author may be advised to make some changes before the external evaluation phase begins. The time frame that the Associate Editors will have for this report will be 15 days.

- External evaluation or peer review (double-blind system): once it has been confirmed that the content of the manuscript meets the formal and thematic requirements, it will be sent to at least two peers, who, in accordance with what is specified in the Guide for Evaluators, will issue a report by filling out the Evaluation Form. In the event of conflicting opinions, and/or if it is judged appropriate, a third opinion will be requested. The time frame set for this evaluation by the external reviewers will be 30 days.

If the text is rejected, the author will be informed of this outcome, the corresponding evaluations being attached. If the text is accepted, or requires changes, the author will be notified, having 15 calendar days, for each of the evaluation phases, to send the revised text. The author must also send a detailed report of the changes made to the manuscript, taking into account the suggestions of the associate editors and the peers, if the decision was contingent upon modifications.

Once the text has been accepted, a final version of it, in PDF format, will be sent to the authors, and 5 days will be available to review it. This will allow the authors to send a report of the specific changes to be made, which, at this point, will mainly involve the format and possible typos.

Once the editorial process has been completed the texts will be filed, with the final order being decided when the corresponding issue is being completed.

Criteria for the acceptance of works

The decisions of the journal's editors as regards the acceptance or rejection of papers shall be based on the following factors:

1. The originality, novelty and relevance of the research carried out are all assessed, in addition to the work's interest to Peace Studies.
2. The work's significance to scientific and social advancement.
3. The reliability and scientific validity of both the sources consulted and the methods used to carry out the research.
4. Adequate writing, logical organization and the material presentation of the manuscript.