Peer review process

For Políticas Públicas, adhering to Elselvier, a reviewer is who evaluates a submitted material and advises the Editorial Team about its suitability for publication. For this, our journal requests that a reviewer and the unfolded review process combine completeness, accuracy and integrity in face to the knowledge contribution which comes from an authorship. Together with this, the reviewer should have a broader perspective on the potential interest the publication may or may not hold for our reader community.

For composing the Políticas Públicas reviewer team, is requested:

  • To present doctor degree, Ph.D. (Philosophie Doctor), JD (Jurisprudence Doctor) or similar, master, magister, or Estudios Avanzados [Advanced Studies] diploma, in Social Sciences fields.
  • To present scientific publications from our scope in disciplinary journals.

Besides, is ideal:

  • To present verifiable work experience (through CV) in public affairs.

Políticas Públicas recognises the done work in our journal at the request of a party. For this, you can ask for the Reviewer Certificate in our email revista.politicaspublicas@usach.cl

Políticas Públicas considers as necessary the disclosure of reviewer responsibilities respect to the concern people in publication process. In this sense, we adhere to the duties which CSE estimates convenient.

Responsibilities towards Authors

  • Providing written, unbiased, constructive feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the duly documented basis for the opinion of reviewer.
  • Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal readers.
  • Avoiding personal comments or criticism.
  • Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed manuscript.

Responsibilities towards Editors

  • Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and, if able, providing the names of alternative reviewers.
  • Alerting the editor about any potential personal, financial or perceived conflict of interest and declining to review when a conflict exists.
  • Complying with the written instructions of Editor on the journal expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review.
  • Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author.
  • Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and, if requested, recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems most useful (see our Assessment Guide in Reviewer tab).
  • Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal that may be known to the reviewer.
  • Refraining from direct author contact.

Responsibilities towards Readers

  • Ensuring that the methods and analysis are adequately detailed to allow the reader to judge the scientific merit of the study design and be able to replicate the study.
  • Ensuring that the article cites all relevant work by other scientists