Item Evaluation Criteria
Arbitration and Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to Con-Secuencias Journal are strictly subject to an arbitration process through a double-blind peer review system. This method ensures that the identity of the authors is unknown to the reviewers and that, likewise, the identity of the reviewers is anonymous to the authors, ensuring impartiality at all times.
Stages of Arbitration
1. Initial evaluation: The Editorial Team conducts a preliminary technical review to verify compliance with the thematic scope and style guidelines. Papers that do not meet these requirements will be discarded before arbitration begins.
2. Peer Review: Articles that pass the initial filter are sent to the members of the Editorial Board. These experts conduct an in-depth peer review, evaluating scientific quality and methodological rigor under strict double-blind conditions.
3. Results of the decision: Once the arbitration process is complete, the author will be notified of the editorial decision, which may be:
- Accept submission: Publishable without changes.
- Publishable with modifications: Requires adjustments suggested during peer review.
- Reconsider for another round: The author must make substantial changes for a new
arbitration process.
- Not publishable: The article does not meet the required scientific standards.
Guarantee of anonymity (double-blind)
To ensure the integrity of the peer review process, author information (names, affiliations, email addresses, and ORCIDs) recorded in the OJS platform metadata is managed exclusively by the Editorial Team. The system ensures that this data remains hidden from the Editorial Board throughout the review process, thus complying with the rigor of the double-blind model.
Article evaluation criteria for the Revista Con-Secuencias
1. Classification of the writing
According to the suggested article typology, do you consider this writing to be (mark with an X):
A. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ARTICLE. Document that presents in detail the original results of research projects. It contains an introduction, methodology, results, and conclusions.
B. REFLECTION ARTICLE. Document that presents research results from the author's analytical, interpretive, or critical perspective on a specific topic, drawing on original sources.
C. REVIEW ARTICLE. Document resulting from research that analyzes, systematizes, and integrates the results of published or unpublished research in order to report on advances and development trends. It includes a careful bibliographic review of at least 50 references.
D. SHORT ARTICLE. A brief document presenting preliminary or partial original results of scientific or technological research, which generally require prompt dissemination.
E. CASE REPORT. Document presenting the results of a study on a particular situation in order to share the technical and methodological experiences considered in a specific case. It includes a systematic review with commentary of the literature on similar cases.
F. OTHER. (Please specify): Document that compiles and summarizes a set of existing writings and texts on a historical-political phenomenon of national significance, in order to reinterpret it from a contemporary perspective.
2. General evaluation.
A. RELEVANCE OF THE TOPIC. Scientific importance of the topic addressed with regard to the production or improvement of knowledge.
B. SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION AND ORIGINALITY. Contribution of the proposal to the state of the art of the issue it addresses.
C. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REVIEW. Relevant, sufficient, and adequate.
D. METHODOLOGY. Research article: clarity in the description of the methodological strategies used and the analysis techniques; sufficient, up-to-date, and specialized sources. Other articles: logical argumentative sequence.
E. WRITING. Language used and clarity of presentation.
