The preliminary evaluation of the documents received in Trabajo Social Global-Global Social Work is a key task for the selection of articles that meet the required quality and impact criteria for the scientific, professional and academic community to which this publication is directed.

This crucial task, in a rigorous peer review process, falls to external reviewers, people recognized as experts in their field, without relation to each other and without knowledge of the authorship of the paper to be evaluated ("double blind" method).

The task of the external reviewer is to collaborate with the Editorial and Editing Committee in verifying the originality and quality of the manuscript, its relevance in the areas of interest of the Journal, and compliance with the formal requirements necessary for publication. To this end, the task to be carried out by the reviewers will focus on the rigorous analysis/evaluation of the content and form of the manuscript, with a critical and constructive attitude.

Editorial policy for the peer review process

The reviewers of the Epistemes section will form an international list, constantly expanding, of specialists with a university doctorate degree or, failing that, of people of recognized prestige in the fields of applied social research, prioritizing authors who have published in journals listed in the Social Science Citation Index .

The reviewers may not include members of the Management Team or the Editorial and Editing Committee of the journal itself, although members of the Advisory Committee, both national and international, may be included.

The authors may propose the name of a specialist for the evaluation of their document, justifying the reason for their choice. The Editorial and Editing Committee reserves the decision to accept this proposal or not, without being obliged to communicate such decision.

 

Instructions on ethical behaviour

Confidentiality

The documents submitted for evaluation are confidential information, so reviewers must refrain from disclosing them in any way, or from using the information contained in the text for their own benefit or that of third parties. If data verification or advice from specialists in the field is necessary, the journal management will be informed of this circumstance (see Privacy Statement).

Conflict of interests

Reviewers have the ethical duty to reject the request for evaluation of papers with which, directly or indirectly, they have collaborated or could have been competitors. Despite the anonymity maintained regarding the authorship of the paper, the reviewers could detect the existence of a relationship or link, present or past, with people or institutions linked to the text to be reviewed that implies conflict and that prevents carrying out the review, according to parameters of equity and objectivity. In the event of this or any other circumstance that may present a conflict of interest, the reviewers will inform the publisher of the impossibility of carrying out an impartial evaluation.

In addition to the existence of a conflict of interest, the reviewer involved in an editorial process must inform the Editorial Committee of any of these circumstances:

• Insufficient knowledge and/or experience in the specific topic of the manuscript, or the existence of more qualified reviewers to carry out its evaluation.
• Plagiarism or fraud: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another paper, or that the data reflected in the text and/or its results have been plagiarized, invented or falsified.

Anonymity

Those who collaborate with the journal in the anonymous review process will prevent any file incorporated into the electronic platform, or contributed by other means, and directed to the authors, from providing data on their identity. To avoid possible identification of the reviewer, please follow the instructions in the section Ensuring a blind review.

 

Phases and deadlines of the review process :

Communication between reviewers and the publisher is carried out through the journal's website, in order to maintain a computer record of each of the events that occur in the process.

Once the editorial invitation has been received by email, each reviewer will have a maximum of 7 days to accept or reject the review request. This request includes the title and summary of the text, and the schedule set for the review. Only in case of acceptance will the link to the full text of the document to be evaluated, as well as the relevant review form, be activated.

The reviewers will issue their report and recommendations within 4 weeks (28 days) from the date of request. In addition to completing the aforementioned form, reviewers may attach their own document with the annotations or comments they consider appropriate.

The recommendation finally made by the reviewer must be in line with the observations written in their qualitative evaluation and/or, where appropriate, numerical score awarded.

In the event of a strong discrepancy between the recommendations of the two reviewers, a third opinion may be requested.

If, based on the recommendations of both reviewers, the editorial decision was to submit the contribution to a 2nd round of peer review, this would be carried out by the same people who carried out the first assessment.

The review guidelines and their possible results can be consulted in the EXTERNAL REVIEW GUIDE prepared by Trabajo Social Global-Global Social Work, which is available for reviewers in the menu of the journal's website from which they make and send their review.