1. Manuscript acceptance/rejection criteria
The Editor-in-Chief of the RECOM, when considering a manuscript review, invites the reviewer he or she deems to be best qualified for the topic involved. Although the Journal asks of reviewers their maximum cooperation to facilitate and speed up reports and responses to authors, acceptance is ultimately dependent on:
Academic knowledge and experience on the manuscript’s topic. Acceptance perforce entails having competence in the subject area.
Time availability. Reviewing a manuscript takes time and requires conscientious reflection on many aspects.
Conflicts of interest. The scientific community comprises a limited number of individuals. Therefore, in case of identifying a manuscript’s authorship; of excessive academic or familial proximity to the authors; of belonging to the same university, department, research team, theme network, research projects; of joint papers with the authors, or of any other type of professional connection or conflict/agreement, a potential reviewer must turn down the Editor’s invitation to review an article. Conflicts of interest may involve both proximity and animosity towards the authors, if they are identified. Authors may indicate via the platform who may have conflicts regarding their work, and also reviewers must document this.
Commitment to confidentiality. Receiving a manuscript for assessment requires of reviewers an express commitment to confidentiality, whereby no papers may be disclosed to a third party. Should a reviewer wish to obtain an opinion from colleagues about the involved article, he/she must discuss it with the Editor-in-Chief, who must explicitly approve any limited disclosure for evaluation purposes. The Editor appreciates any additional comments, but needs to keep the full appraisal process confidential. Assessments and recommendations by reviewers will contribute to the Editor’s final decision.
If a given review cannot proceed because of any of the above or other, the reviewer must report it via the platform (using the same route through which the invitation was received), specifying the reasons for rejection so they are taken into account.
2. The reviewing function
The role of an external reviewer, as peer reviewer, is to provide a critical, constructive analysis of the manuscript contents, to help the Editor ascertain/ratify whether the submitted work is of high scientific quality and complies with all of this journal’s demanding standards in order to be accepted and subsequently edited.
Assessment by reviewers is key for a fundamental, precise identification of originality and excellence in the submitted material.
Reviewers will provide a general assessment reflecting on the probability of the article having a lasting, strong influence on the research areas encompassed by the Journal.
3. General criteria for reviewing manuscripts
3.1. Subject
For the central theme of an article to be relevant and of scientific value, it must be both specific (specifically detailed without being parochial) and of profound interest to the international scientific community.
3.2. Style
Generally speaking, a reviewer’s critical evaluation of a manuscript must be reported in writing using an objective style, providing exact quotes from the text submitted, and citing references to support and justify his or her reasoning.
3.3. Originality
Originality and suitability are essential criteria for the manuscript to be selected for our journal. The high number of papers received requires that reviewers be highly selective:
- Is the article novel and interesting enough to justify publication?
- Does it contribute anything new to the present body of knowledge?
- Is the research question relevant?
A rapid search of the literature using tools such as Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Google Scholar to check whether the research has been previously covered may be useful. References to these works are also of interest to the Editor.
3.4. Structure
All manuscripts must have all of the key components.
- The title, summary and keywords must accurately describe the content of the article. They are vital for readers to easily retrieve a paper using Internet search engines.
- The review of the literature must summarize the state of the art of the research subject by placing the work within the international context, and explain which conclusions drawn by other authors, if appropriate, are being questioned or extended. The review must include a general explanation of the study, its primary goal, and the methodological design that was followed.
- In research articles the authors must state in the material and methods section how were data collected, and the process and instruments used to test their hypotheses; that is, they must provide all the information necessary for other investigators to replicate the study.
- The results section must clearly state the findings, which should be presented in logical sequence. It will be necessary to determine whether the type of analysis used, whether quantitative, qualitative or mixed-type, contains any errors.
- The discussion section contains an interpretation of the data obtained from the review of the literature and data collection. The authors must state here whether their article supports or contradicts previous theories.
- The conclusions will finally explain the advances contributed by the investigation to the field of scientific knowledge.
- Language: If an article contains significant grammatical errors or is written in a complex, overelaborate style that makes the manuscript difficult to read, and if the clear, simple, accurate and transparent language (in English or Spanish) required of scientific language is absent, the reviewer must not attempt to revise the text. The reviewer must inform the editors about the grammatical errors and awkward language, and the editors will then return the manuscript to the authors for rewriting in accordance with the Journal’s guidelines, if appropriate.
- Reviewers must also decide if the submitted figures and tables are necessary and relevant to the text, and check their accuracy, as well as graphic consistency.
- Finally, an in-depth review of the references for omissions of relevant works must be undertaken. References must be accurate and include the major works on the subject of interest, as well as the documents most clearly resembling the paper under review and the latest research in the field.
3.5. Relevant assessment dimensions
Reviewers must carry out an in-depth analysis of the manuscript, contrasting the information supplied, checking the scientific literature used to support the document, and submitting a quantitative and qualitative assessment report to the editors concerning the paper’s suitability for publication.
Assessment-related information must be well supported and qualitative, also accompanied by numeric data that must be consistent with the comments provided and serve as ranking criteria for submitted works.
3.6. Ethical issues
- Plagiarism: If a reviewer suspects the author(s) have substantially copied from another article, he/she must inform the Editor, indicating the copied paper in as much detail as possible.
- Fraud: If a reviewer suspects the results presented in an article are false or fraudulent, he or she must report this to the Editor.
3.7. Report
The report must contain the key points of the review, and approach the items mentioned in the previous section.
Reviewer comments must be respectful and constructive, and be devoid of personal remarks or data. They must provide clear, strict information on any deficiencies in the manuscript. Reviewers must explain and back up their conclusions so that editors and authors can follow the reasoning behind their comments. Reviewers must also indicate whether their comments are personal opinions or are based on authoritative criteria.
Reports may be sent directly to authors just as they were received from the reviewers. It is therefore important that care is taken particularly concerning the formal aspects (organization, clarity, writing style, correct spelling, etc.). Please bear in mind that reports often include assessments and requests for modifications in terms of formal aspects, making it essential that reviewers be also careful with these.
Assessments must be reported with care in terms of language use, avoiding as much as possible expressions that might be deemed offensive by the authors. It is key to combine a rigorous, even harsh evaluation of a text with exquisite respect for the authors’ work. On no account should reviewers use expressions such as: “This is not a serious…”; “Only total ignorance of the subject matter would lead the authors to state that…” or similar statements.
Partial evaluations relative to content-related and formal aspects will consider the following assessment criteria:
Content-related aspects
- Degree of interest and topicality of the subject.
- Relevance and cutting edge status of sources.
- Interest of the theoretical proposition.
- Clarity in the discussion of the work’s aims.
- Methodological adequacy to approach the work’s aims.
- Relevance and correction of data analysis procedures (if appropriate).
- Interest of empirical data (if appropriate).
- Relevance of the discussion, results and conclusions.
- Importance from a professional didactic perspective (if appropriate).
Formal aspects
- Organization and structure.
- Well-balanced extension of sections, appropriate to the content.
- Writing and style.
- Presentation of tables and/or graphs.
- Bibliographic references (according to APA guidelines, with citations in the text matching the list of references at the end).