The collaborations received are evaluated by a team of national and international referees and are submitted, by the Editorial Committee, to a rigorous selection method for the works to be published. During the opinion process, the evaluators and the authors preserve anonymity.

The evaluation system is by blind peer arbitration/opposition method. The articles received are distributed by the president of the Editorial Committee, with the participation of two referees per article, who are given models, so that they can make the oppositions where they express their criteria (opinion) and make comments on the quality of said articles, selecting or not the same by the Editorial Committee of the journal in a meeting held for this purpose.

Possible results can be:

• Accepted
• Accepted with modifications
• Rejected

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 issues the verdict of accepted, accepted with modifications 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.

The average time between receipt of the papers and the final verdict is 90 days. After being approved, the average number of days between the date of acceptance and the final publication of the article is 7 days.

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.
• Summary/Abstract: That expresses the objective, methods, main results and conclusions with full correspondence between them.
• Keywords/Key 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.

To consult the complete arbitration form you can download the PDF file available at the address: planilla_arbitraje.pdf