Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Evaluation process

Peer Review Process

Manuscript evaluation

The journal Cuadernos de Lingüística Hispánica evaluates the submitted manuscripts through a "double-blind" peer review system, which means that the identity of both the authors and the reviewers is reserved throughout the process, with the purpose that the evaluation is as independent as possible and maintains its scientific focus.

To offer clarity to our authors, below, we explain the stages of the journal evaluation process:

Editorial review and desk rejection

All manuscripts submitted to the journal go through an editorial review that consists of 1) a similarity review of the manuscript in an anti-plagiarism software; 2) a review of compliance with the minimum submission criteria and the interest of the topic for the journal.

If in any of these two aspects a problem is identified in the manuscript, the journal will notify the authors, either suggesting adjustments or corrections or discarding the submission of the manuscript.

Manuscripts that successfully pass this phase or those that do not present any problem will go through the peer review process.

Reviewers’ selection

Once a manuscript passes the editorial review, the search or selection of peer reviewers begins. The journal selects reviewers based on a review of the candidate's profile, in which academic training is combined (mainly reviewers with a Linguistics doctorate or specialty are sought), recent publications of books and articles, the research activity of the potential reviewer, and her/his H index. Also, they must not have a conflict of interest with the document object of the evaluation. If the Editorial Committee is unaware of this, the reviewer must state in writing if she/he has a conflict of interest with the research in which she/he is involved with the research which frames the article or with the funding institution.

Manuscript reading

The reviewers who agree to evaluate the manuscript do an in-depth review of its contents to establish, in general terms, its scientific rigor (conceptual and methodological aspects, results, etc.) and some aspects related to its presentation and writing.

Peer review outcome

Each time the journal completes an evaluation cycle ¾usually involving two or three reviewers for each manuscript¾, the editor reads, consolidates, and submits the concepts with a verdict on likely acceptance or rejection. The consolidated concept can suggest slight modifications, deep modifications, and approval without modifications or rejection.

The final approval of the manuscript, in the case of the request for corrections, will depend on the verification of the reviewers of the improved version and the acceptance of the editor.

Evaluation Form

There is an instrument for evaluating the articles in which it is stipulated: the scale of assessment, the minimum passing score, the typology of the articles (i.e. research, review, discussion), aspects of content and aspects of format with their respective criteria assessment and scoring ranges.

The reviewer has the possibility to accept, reject or approve the article with modifications. The journal ensures the confidentiality of the names of the reviewers and the partial and total results of the evaluation.

The article accepted with observations, according to the reviewers' criteria, will be returned to its author(s) so that they can make the pertinent corrections. Once received, it must be delivered back, with the adjustments, to the reviewers to verify the improvements.


Authors will have the opportunity to make one round of corrections to their manuscripts. In the event of an insistence on the part of the reviewers or the Editor on the insufficiency of the adjustments, the article may be rejected.

Finally, the corrections timeline will be defined according to what the editor suggests and agreed with the authors. In any case, the period may not exceed one trimester; Once this period has expired and if corrections are not delivered, the manuscript will be rejected.

Peer review average time

The peer review process is complex due to the specialization of some topics and the work overload of many researchers who, in addition, also act as reviewers or editors for several journals. To this is added that the process is carried out ad honorem. However, the journal will work on rigorous monitoring of all its processes, to provide quick answers to its authors, in a matter of weeks or a few months.

On average, a full peer review cycle for a manuscript will take about four months. When divergent opinions arise between two reviewers, the article will be sent to a third reviewer, to resolve the controversy.