The content of this procedural guide for reviewers is intended for the peer review process to achieve the following objectives:

• Ensure an independent and objective review.
• Guarantee that published articles offer scientifically available, verifiable and updated information and data, and that its contribution is relevant to the development of knowledge.
• Guarantee that authors receive constructive feedback on their contribution, through objective, reasoned and instructive evaluation reports, in which the strengths and weaknesses of their texts are highlighted, with the aim of improving their scientific, methodological, technical-professional and/or political-social contributions.

 

Review Report Style

The reviewers will prepare their report always taking into consideration the following guidelines:

• The purpose of the review is twofold: on the one hand, it is a task of advising the editorial team on the suitability of publishing the document; on the other hand, it is the reviewer's job to procure an improvement in the paper to be published by communicating proposals to the author that enrich the contribution examined.
  • The role of the reviewer in the editorial process is that of an external evaluator, in their scientific-cultural and professional field, of the document developed by another colleague whose identity is unknown. This role must be limited to this objective, making constructive and respectful reports with the people and institutions responsible for the document, in the search for positive feedback that promotes the benefit of scientific and professional dissemination in the field of Social Work/Social Intervention.

For these reasons:

• Criticisms and appraisals will be objective, reasoned and specified, refraining from including personal or subjective evaluations.
• Criticism should always be directed at the argumentation and the consistency of the data presented, never at the authors.
• The tone must be cordial, in search of an understanding that encourages and stimulates the author's persistence in improving their contribution.

 

Information on the aspects to be evaluated

• The manuscript signifies a development of scientific knowledge and/or professional development of social intervention, and is, therefore, relevant to the practical discipline or specific interdisciplinary knowledge called Social Work .
• It has the content, argumentation and writing structure required by the scientific community for any quality scientific and professional journal, according to the standards of Scientific Documentation.
• It is of interest to the target audience of Trabajo Social Global-Global Social Work: Journal of research in social intervention.

Taking into account these objectives, the criteria to follow in the evaluation of manuscripts will be the following:

Criteria for the evaluation of general aspects

• Degree of originality of the document.
• The relevance of the manuscript for the progress of the discipline or knowledge of Social Work .
• Direct or indirect contributions to the professional development of social work-social intervention.
• The ethical, cultural, social, political and economic implications of the same, for the enhancement of human rights, social justice and democratic-social development in general.

 

Criteria for the evaluation of specific aspects, according to Sections of the journal:

1. A) Common aspects:

• Writing/style . The clarity and precision in the presentation of the text in its entirety will be evaluated, with special interest in the presentation of the central theme. For its part, the critical evaluation of the manuscript by the reviewers must be written in an objective tone, providing exact quotes from it or references of interest to present their argument and justify it.
• Language: if a manuscript presents grammatical errors, a style that is disrespectful to specific people, or language that is too convoluted that makes it difficult to read, therefore moving away from scientific language, the reviewer's role will not involve correcting it, but will proceed to report these circumstances to the Editor of the Journal, who will return the text to the authors so that, if appropriate, it can be modified according to the parameters required for its publication. There should also be a tendency to reduce sexist language as much as possible, and with linguistic sensibility.
• Title, abstract and keywords. The title (and subtitle, if applicable), the abstract and the keywords must describe the content of the article as accurately as possible. The reviewer will specify if any of these sections require expansion, reduction or deletion, always justifying this requirement with sufficient and concise arguments.
• Introduction. All papers, for any of the sections, must begin with an Introduction, which sets out the content and aims of the article, to most effectively inform the reader to allow them to begin reading actively. The Introduction will never exceed 10% of the entire text (excluding the Bibliography).
• All papers, for any of the sections, will close with a Conclusions segment that synthesizes and emphasizes its acquisitions and contributions. The Conclusions will never exceed 10% of the entire text (excluding the Bibliography).
• Presentation of tables and/or graphs. Always, citing the source at the bottom, or informing if it is self-produced, total or partial.
• Citations and references. The relevance and timeliness of the textual or summary citations, and the reference notes that necessarily accompany them, will be evaluated, following the Harvard-APA Standards, 7th edition.

1. B) Specific aspects for the “Epistemes” section

B.1) For the type of article “Presentation of research” (or “empirical-based article”):

The reviewer will take into account whether the author has chosen to present the article in the standard format modality (IMRAD): Introduction. Methodology. Results and Discussion/Conclusions. Or if you have chosen the non-standard format modality for writing (see structure of the manuscript in Guidelines for authors).

In case of standard format :

• Methodology. In this segment it is assessed whether the research methods and analytical criteria have been chosen wisely, in congruence with the theoretical approaches and the research problem. The author must specify in this section how the data is collected, as well as the process and instruments used to answer the research questions or hypotheses raised.
• The clear presentation of the arguments put forward and, where appropriate, the results obtained in their analysis will be evaluated. Your presentation must be clear and follow a logical sequence.
• Discussion and Conclusions. The quality of the critical discussion of the results will be taken into account, as well as the clarity and proficiency of synthesis of the conclusions.

In case of non-standard format:

The Reviewer will pay attention to the content of the article and its argumentative process . They will examine:

• whether it contains – and is adequately presented – a theoretical reference table;
• whether the analyses and conclusions are supported by empirical evidence ;
• whether there is methodological and theoretical congruence and
• whether the conclusions are derived with logical and sound reasoning.

B.2) For the article “Theoretical-documentary reviews” (or “theoretical article”) :

The reviewer will take into account whether the author has chosen to present the article in the standard format modality (Introduction. Materials and documentary sources. Critical discussion. Conclusions). Or whether the non-standard format modality for writing has been chosen (see structure of the manuscript in Guidelines for authors)

In case of standard format :

• Introduction and Conclusions. These will follow the same criteria set forth for other modalities.
• Materials and sources . Being a bibliographic review, the review will examine the richness and variety of the documentation, the breadth of the material used, the degree of work with primary or original sources in comparison with treatises, reviews, commentators, etc., the up-to-date nature of the bibliography, the variety of linguistic-cultural communities used (whether in the original language or in translations), etc.
• Critical discussion. The quality, breadth, originality and relevance of the critical discussion of the studied materials presented in the article will be decisively taken into account.

In case of non-standard format:

The same dimensions will be examined as for the standard format, when examining the content and argumentation of the theoretical review article in a freer format.

 

Final recommendation for the manuscript

As a consequence of the evaluation carried out, the person who reviewed the manuscript will inform the journal of their recommendation regarding it. To do this, they will mark the appropriate option in the relevant box on the digital platform.

The reviewer will mark one of these four options:

• Accept submission: when you consider that the paper should be published in the same version that has been submitted for evaluation, although your report may contain specific suggestions and/or corrections that you recommend be incorporated before publication.
• Publishable with modifications: when it is considered that the paper can be published, as long as the author makes the improvements that have been explained in the report.
• Resend for review: when the recommendations and improvements proposed in the evaluation recommend a revision of the paper by the author, and its subsequent submission to a 2nd round of peer review (same evaluators from the 1st round), postponing until this second evaluation the appropriate decision regarding its publication. Thus, it will not be appropriate to mark the “resubmit for review” option when the manuscript is already in a 2nd round of peer review, and the evaluators must decide in this case between publication (with or without modifications) or the rejection of the paper.
• Not publishable: when the evaluation made of the paper provides clear and reasoned criteria that advise against its publication, even if the author were to revise their contribution in accordance with said evaluation.