Peer review process

All papers submitted to Palimpsesto, which have passed the pre-evaluation conducted by the Editorial Committee, are subjected to double-blind peer review by the Review Committee, based on the Evaluation Guidelines approved by the Scientific Councils. The Review Committee consists of national and international specialists with extensive and recognized academic experience.

The referees or peer reviewers are qualified and specialized professionals in the thematic areas of each article submitted to the journal. Their suitability will depend on, among other things, the following criteria:

  • They must hold a Master's, Doctorate, or Postdoctoral degree.
  • They must have scientific publications with research or studies in the area.
  • They must not have the same institutional affiliation as the author of the article.

Once the blind peer reviews are received, the Editorial Committee will make the final decision to approve or reject the publication based on the following rulings:

  • The publication is approved.
  • The publication is approved with revisions and reworking of the aspects noted by the reviewers.
  • Adjust and resubmit for evaluation.
  • The publication of the article is rejected.

If the reviewers' report requires corrections, the author will have a period of thirty working days to make the requested adjustments. If this deadline is exceeded, the contribution will be subject to the decisions made by the Editorial Committee based on the journal's editing schedule. It is also noteworthy that the approval of a paper submitted for evaluation does not determine its immediate publication.

The general editor of the journal will acknowledge receipt of the original manuscripts within fifteen working days from their submission in the Corrected Article section of the OJS repository.

The review system implies that each article is subjected to the evaluation of two external members from the publishing institution. They will have a period of thirty (30) working days for the evaluation. If the evaluations are eventually dichotomous, a third reviewer will be proposed to decide on the proposal.