Guidelines for reviewers

The purpose of this guide is to ensure that all peer review processes carried out in the journal SOBRE are characterized by the following principles:

  • Guaranteeing an independent review that provides constructive feedback to authors in a respectful manner.
  • Ensuring that manuscripts present a clear, objective, and balanced overview of their respective topics.
  • Verifying that the information is current, scientifically accessible, and verifiable.
  • Confirming that the conclusions or arguments derived from the research are intelligible and relevant to the discipline.

Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

Confidentiality

All manuscripts are considered privileged information. Reviewers are requested to refrain from sharing or discussing them with third parties unless seeking advice on a specific aspect.

Ethical Conduct

SOBRE expects reviewers involved in its editorial process to:

  • Notify the editorial team if they believe another person is better qualified to assess the manuscript.
  • Inform the editorial team immediately if they anticipate difficulty in providing an objective evaluation.
  • Disclose any current or past relationships with institutions or individuals related to the manuscript that could lead to a conflict of interest, using the Review Form.
  • If reviewers rely on AI tools, they must do so in accordance with the recommendations for the use of AI at Universidad de Granada and the Editorial Policy guidelines on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In any case, such use must be understood solely as a complementary tool for the review of partial aspects and never as a substitute for human critical judgment or as determinative of the final recommendation on the manuscript.

Review Deadlines

Once a reviewer accepts the commitment to evaluate a manuscript, they must submit their report within three weeks.

Structure and Style of Review Reports

Reviewers will submit their reports by completing the Evaluation Form and adhering to the following guidelines:

  • Peer review serves a dual purpose: advising the editorial team on the suitability of the manuscript for publication and suggesting improvements to the work.
  • Reviewers should act as expert advisors on a colleague’s work, not as judges or decision-makers. Therefore, the tone of the report must always reflect the utmost respect for the authors and institutions involved.
  • All critiques and comments must be objective and not based on personal opinions or unsubstantiated judgments.
  • Criticism should focus on the reasoning and consistency of the data presented, never on the authors themselves.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers will assess both general and specific aspects of the manuscript to determine whether the research:

  1. Represents an advancement in knowledge and is relevant to the discipline.
  2. Meets the standards of argumentation, writing, and structure required in scientific communications.
  3. Is of interest to the journal’s target audience.
GENERAL EVALUATION

General comments should be supported by concrete evidence from the manuscript or other published works and should consider:

  • The originality of the work.
  • Its significance for the advancement of the discipline, including any social, cultural, or economic implications.
SPECIFIC EVALUATION

Specific aspects will be assessed in the following categories:

Presentation and Writing

The clarity and precision of the manuscript will be evaluated, including the body text, titles, abstracts, and keywords. These elements must clearly reflect the main topic of the research.

Length and Structure

This section assesses whether the manuscript is organized into logical sections that efficiently convey information, and whether any sections need to be expanded, reduced, or removed.

Methodology and Reproducibility

Reviewers will evaluate whether the methods and criteria were appropriately chosen and whether the research process is described clearly enough to be replicated by another qualified researcher.

Findings and Conclusions

Reviewers will assess whether the key arguments and findings are clearly identified and whether the conclusions are logically derived from the analysis.

Citations and References

This section evaluates whether all citations and references used in the manuscript are relevant and up to date.

Similarities

Reviewers should indicate if they are aware of other works, published or forthcoming, that are identical or very similar to the manuscript under review.