1. Introduction

A doble-blind peer-review evaluation is a tool used in critical evaluation of the submitted works content. All articles that pass the pre-evaluation process will be subjected to this external evaluation. This document presents the guidelines that illustrate the criteria for pre-evaluation and evaluation of articles, the identification and selection of referees, as well as the updating of the peer reviewers list.

2. Pre-evaluation of texts

The submitted articles will face a first filter to verify it will meet the following criteria:

-Editorial policies: originality, abstract, and keywords in (at least) two languages, length of words, bibliography  

-Citation style guideline: language and syntax, line spacing, margins, citations, and type font. 

- The guidelines of the call for the reception of articles. 

This verification will be in charge of the Editorial Board and coordinators. The articles that have passed the pre-evaluation will be considered for the selection process.

3. Selection of articles

-Manuscripts will be selected anonymously.

-The evaluation will consider the relevance in relation to the subject of the call for papers. The coordinators will complete a template planned for this purpose.

-In the case of “Central Issue” articles, the responsibility for the selection rests with the dossier coordination team; while the articles in the “Conjuncture” section will be selected by the journal’s editorial team.

-The editorial team may, if warranted, request adjustments from authors on the submitted article, so it complies with the selection requirements

-Those articles that successfully pass the selection process will be considered for peer review

-Authors who have made a submission will be notified if their articles have not been selected.

4. Selection and identification of blind peer review

-During an arbitration meeting, the journal editorial team and the coordinators will propose collectively a list of names of peer reviewers, and will suggest to whom they will send the articles, according to their academic field.

-The evaluator must be external to the publishing entity, in this case, the Institute of Advanced National Studies (IAEN).0

-The evaluators must show experience and knowledge on the article academic field they will evaluate. The following criteria will be considered:

• Teaching and research experience area
• Relevant publications related to the academic field article they will evaluate.
• The reviewer will evaluate: conceptual and theoretical consistency, coherence of arguments, relevance and mastery of updated bibliography.

5. Evaluation

The peer evaluation will consider the following principles:

-Impartiality: an objective evaluation will be carried out. The reading will be constructive, identify weak points and propose mechanisms to enhance them; propose improvements in the methodology; expand the definition and conceptual scope; will suggest complementary bibliography. If the referee presumes  the authorship of the article, he or she must decline the invitation to evaluate.

-Academic: the evaluation will be fair, equal, fast, and confidential. The evaluator based on her/his experience, may show the ability to discover innovative contributions, ideas, and concepts.

-Responsibility: the evaluator will agree with the editor, and meet the deadlines established for carrying out the evaluation process. Prior the evaluation, the reviewer will confirm, whether or not she or he agrees with the established deadlines. Likewise, the evaluator must declare if she or he is prevented from evaluating the article for any professional or personal reason.

-Anonymity:  During the peer review process the evaluator agrees not to disclose by any means, printed or digital, the contents of the article.

The evaluation process will consider the following steps:

-The editor will contact two (2) of the suggested peer reviewers, and confirm their availability. Once their acceptance is confirmed, the editor will send a letter of the process initiation, the article under anonymity, and a evaluation form.

-The peer reviewers will send a report within a period not exceeding fifteen (15) days from the delivery of the documentation.

-In the event the blind peer reviewer does not submit the evaluation within the established deadline, an additional week will be granted as long as it justifies its delay. In case of no response, the editor will select a new blind peer reviewer from the list suggested during the arbitration meeting.

-The reviewers will include the results from their evaluation by the arbitration report according to the evalution template set for this purpose. There are three possible observations: 1) the article is publishable; 2) the article is publishable with modifications; and 3) the article is not publishable. In case of any controversy in the results of the arbitration report, the editor will ask for a third and binding opinion.

-If a third evaluation is set, the peer reviewer will be selected from the list suggested during the arbitration meeting.

-The editor will receive the arbitration reports, and will send the coordinators a simplified table on the opinion of the evaluations, which will detail the Central Issue articles that could be published, as well as the articles that have been rejected.

-The editor will send the arbitration reports to the authors whose articles have been evaluated “publishable with modifications”. These reports contain suggestions for adjustments in content and structure for authors to consider.

-The authors have fifteen (15) days to incorporate these modifications. This deadline can be revised as long as you provide a reasonable justification.

-The editor will send to the coordination team the adjusted articles (Central Issue Section) and the arbitration reports. The dossier coordinators will validate the changes to confirm that the evaluators’ suggestions have been accepted.

-The editorial team of State and Commons will do this validation work for the articles in the Conjuncture section.

6. Updating the Peer Reviewers List

-State and Commons Journal receives requests from academics, and professionals who wish to join the peer reviewers list.

-The journal editor will update the peer reviewers database every six months. This update contains: professional profile, interested academic field of study, institutional affiliation, and e-mail address.

-Depending on the subject of the call for papers, a specific peer reviewer from the list will be considered during the arbitration meeting.

-Those peer reviewers who have accepted the invitation to give an opinion on an article, and who did not send their feedback within the established deadline without prior justification, will not be considered for future reviews.

7. Deadlines and conflict resolution

Each issue of the journal is planned one year in advance. This process begins with the call for papers and ends with the publication of the journal in the corresponding period.

Peer review of articles begins after the close of each call for papers. The journal does not perform peer review before the closing date.

-  Average time during which the preliminary assessment of manuscripts is conducted: four (4) weeks.

-  The peer review period is six (6) to eight (8) weeks.

- The time that elapses between the reception of the article (closing of the call for papers) and the peer review is ten (10) to twelve (12) weeks.

- The time that elapses between the reception of the article (closing of the call for papers) and the publication of the article is thirty (30) weeks.

- Coordinators and the editorial team approve the publication of articles that have passed the peer evaluation process, and whose authors have made modifications to their articles.

-When rejection or “not publishable” outcome, the author may appeal the decision before the Editorial Committee, this is the last instance that will approve or not the article after its evaluation. In case the publication proceeds, the author will make the adjustments to her/his article according to the evaluators’ recommendations.

The implemented evaluation report by State and Commons is the following: