The works are previously submitted to an editorial quality review, in which compliance with the parameters established in the instructions to authors is supervised. If they meet the requirements set forth in our journal, then the article is registered in the control book to later submit it to the arbitration process. All contributions received are subjected to a strictly double-blind peer review process (for authors and evaluators) under the supervision of the Editorial Committee. In case of discrepancies in the evaluation reports, a third reviewer is used. The review time will be up to 30 days. The referees evaluate the manuscript according to the guidelines provided by the journal. If the referees or the Editorial Committee deem it pertinent, they may request additional information about the manuscript (data, procedures, etc.) from the authors for better evaluation.

Finally, the authors are informed of the conclusions of the evaluation of the manuscript:

• Not fit to post
• Return for modifications
• Acceptance for publication

The decision of the editors will be unappealable. When the work is returned to the author in charge of correspondence, to make changes, it must be returned to the Editorial Committee for re-evaluation within the following 20 calendar days and must be accompanied by a document stating the accepted changes and those not accepted are explained. The arranged document will be submitted to a verification arbitration and the annex of changes not made will be analyzed by members of the Editorial Committee.

The communication between the editors and the author will be maintained until the go-ahead is given for the article to go through the editing process or it is rejected, which will be officially informed. When the editing process is finished, the PDF version of the article will be sent to the author for him to carry out the final review and indicate to the editor, via email, if he agrees with this version or if he proposes changes in form. The author will have a maximum of five working days to give his answer, after which the Editorial Committee will assume that he has agreed with the changes.

In cases of controversy, that is, when one of the two evaluating referees issues an opinion of accepted and the other one of rejected or accepted with modifications, a request for evaluation is sent to a third referee and after its verdict the Committee Editorial weighs the three evaluations and will issue the verdict of accepted, minor revision, major revision or rejected.

In case of suspicion or breach of some of the good ethical practices established in the Code of the journal and other cases of Controversy, the procedure will be as established in the Flow Charts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for each case.

In the evaluation process, the referees will take into account the following parameters:

• Originality: If the contribution is new and original, through the use of anti-plagiarism processes.
• Title: Concise, specific, with adequate syntax and that reflects the content of the work in no more than 15 words.
• Summary/Abstract: That expresses the objective, methods, main results and conclusions with full correspondence between them.
• Keywords/Key words: No more than 5 words, all necessary, standardized and descriptive of the content with correspondence between them.
• Introduction: That clearly defines the problem, the scope and objective of the research, the state of the art and how it has been approached by other researchers.
• Materials and Methods: That they express the quantity and quality of the materials used, that the methodology used and the experimental conditions are pertinent to the stated objective, and if the statistical analyzes are mentioned and are appropriate.
• Results and Discussion: That the results are clearly exposed and presented in a logical way with the help of images, tables and figures. That the interpretations are correct and the relationship between the data obtained is highlighted. If there is a contrast of the results with those of other published works, and if the possible theoretical and/or practical implications are highlighted in a way that supports the conclusions.
• References: That the appropriate sources of scientific information are used and that they present an adequate percentage of actuality. That the citations in the text and the bibliography are correctly established according to the bibliographic style of the journal. Images, Tables and Figures: All necessary, intelligible, self-explanatory and of high quality, presented in a timely manner in the body of the work.
• English: Suitable for the compression of the title, abstract and keywords.
• Dimensions: Parts of the job can be enlarged, reduced or deleted.

For the arbitration form, it can be consulted at: Arbitration form