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’ reports indicate that corrections are required, the author will have a maximum of thirty days to make the requested revisions. If this deadline is exceeded, the submission will be subject to the decisions made by the Editorial Board in accordance with the journal's production schedule. It should also be noted that acceptance of a manuscript following peer review does not guarantee its immediate publication.

The editor-in-chief will acknowledge receipt of the original manuscript within fifteen working days of its upload to the "Corrected Article" section of the OJS repository.

The peer review system requires that each article be evaluated by two reviewers external to the publishing institution. These reviewers will have a period of thirty (30) working days to complete their evaluation. If the two evaluations prove to be contradictory (one positive, one negative), a third reviewer will be appointed to resolve the matter.

Note: The review process is sustained by the voluntary (unpaid) work of academics who carry out this task alongside their teaching, research, and administrative responsibilities. For this reason, the review timelines are indicative and may be extended depending on the reviewers’ availability.