Evaluation process
Perspectiva Geográfica evaluates all manuscripts it receives under a “double-blind” peer review system. This evaluation process consists of the following phases:
Editorial review. All manuscripts submitted to the journal will go through an editorial review. This filter consists of verifying that the authors have correctly submitted the documents that formalize the submission (letter of commitment, conflict of interest form) and subsequently, the manuscript is verified through an anti-plagiarism software. If problems are detected in the manuscript, the authors will be informed.
If the manuscript reports no problems of formalization or originality, the editors will check if it is of sufficient quality to be sent to a full external peer review process. Here, the editor in charge reviews the structure of the manuscript, its bibliographic support, its most important conceptual or methodological aspects and its correspondence with the thematic spectrum of the journal or of the particular edition to which it has been submitted (in the case of a submission to a special edition). If everything is correct, the manuscript will be assigned to external peers. Otherwise, the authors will be informed if the manuscript is not accepted or if aspects need to be corrected or clarified before proceeding.
Selection and call for reviewers. The journal will locate and call for reviewers for each of the manuscripts accepted for evaluation, according to their academic background, research experience in the specific area of the article and recent related publications.
The deadlines for evaluation will depend on the complexity of the subject of the manuscript or any specific circumstance raised by the reviewer. However, the journal will always suggest a deadline of 6 weeks, with a possible extension of time, if necessary. In the event that a reviewer fails to deliver a promised concept, the editor may reassign the manuscript to another reviewer.
Evaluation Criteria. The journal has a form that serves as a guide for the evaluation of any manuscript (download the form here). This form will allow a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the status of each manuscript. Aspects of form such as structure, quality of language, handling of figures and tables, and aspects of theoretical and methodological background, depth of analysis, relevance and timeliness of the bibliographic support and the relevance of its results or conclusions will be reviewed.
The evaluation of each manuscript will also depend on its textual typology, i.e., whether it is an original article, a review article, a technical note, among others.
Results. The results of a peer review process can be fourfold: approved without corrections, approved with slight corrections (of form or format), approved with deep corrections (of substance and form) subject to verification by external evaluators, and rejected. Authors are free to express to the editor their disagreement with a peer review result, however, the final decision on the publication of the article will be taken by consensus between the scientific committee of the journal and the peer reviewers.
Despite the reply, the journal will not be obliged to reconsider its decision, but each case will be studied to assess whether the claim of the authors is justified and whether it would be necessary to request clarifications from the reviewers or, even, if it would lead to convene the intervention of a new reviewer.
Corrections and verification. Once the reaction of two or three reviewers has been consolidated, the journal will issue a consolidated result to notify the authors. Articles that are accepted under the condition of being corrected should be returned with a letter of reply giving details of the adjustments and responding to the comments of each reviewer. These adjustments will be verified by the reviewers and based on their approval or final recommendations, the editor will make a final decision on each manuscript.
If the case arises in which a corrected manuscript persists in some flaws already pointed out by one or more reviewers, the authors will be given one more opportunity to correct. If the flaws are not satisfactorily corrected, the manuscript may be rejected at this point. Likewise, failure to submit a corrected version within the time agreed upon by the authors and the editor may be a cause for rejection, unless an extension of the deadline for corrections is requested.
Timing of the process. On average, the entire evaluation cycle of a manuscript, which manages to pass all phases of the process, lasts about a quarter. In the event of difficulties in obtaining available peers or non-compliance in the delivery of concepts, the journal will take measures to reassign the manuscripts and will notify the authors.
Petitions, complaints, replies and requests. In case of disagreement with any result of the evaluation, the process itself or any particular petition or request, please write directly to the journal's mailbox: perspectiva.geografica@uptc.edu.co. Such requests will be studied by the editors or the editor-in-chief.