Evaluation Process

The papers received in CENTRA Journal of Social Sciences will be evaluated by means of a double-blind evaluation, guaranteeing the anonymity of the authorship data and the data of the evaluators. The system of double anonymous peer review and the universalism of the evaluation criteria guarantee the maximum scientific rigour of the published works, open to the widest scientific community at national and international level.

The evaluation process (free of charge for authors) will begin with receipt of the original text which, as indicated, will be acknowledged. The Research Department will carry out an initial technical review of the text, in order to guarantee compliance with editorial and writing standards and complete anonymization of the text. In parallel to this process, a preliminary substantive evaluation will be carried out by the editor. If the person carrying out this editorial task considers, in a reasoned manner, that the minimum scientific and academic quality necessary to be referred to external evaluators is not achieved, the evaluation will be considered to be negative without further ado and the authors will be informed of this. If it is the technical review of the Research Department that indicates an inexcusable deficiency, the text will be returned to its authors so that they can carry out the required reformulation and, in this case, it may be resubmitted. Any manuscript that does not pass this double initial technical and preliminary substantive phase will not proceed to the next phase, anonymous external evaluation.

In the second phase, the text will be sent to two experts in the field of social sciences outside of CENTRA and its Editorial Board, in order for them to carry out the evaluation according to a qualitative and quantitative template of criteria referring to the scientific quality of the text. and, more specifically, with regard to the structure of the content, its interest and centrality, the relevance of its argumentative contributions and empirical evidence, the level of the theoretical approach and discussion, the robustness and finesse of the methodology. developed, the relevance of the bibliography and the empirical material provided, as well as a joint decision on whether or not to publish the manuscript. The evaluation reports must be adequately argued in accordance with the indications of the different evaluation templates and be respectful in their judgments and statements about the text and the anonymous authorship. In the event of a profound discrepancy between both evaluations, a third evaluation will be used, which will correspond to a member of the Editorial Board and which will resolve the positive or negative meaning of the evaluation process.

Based on the external evaluations and the arguments formulated, a final decision will be made on the text, which will take the form of one of the following possibilities:

1. Publishable in its current wording or with few modifications.

2. Publishable but with important modifications.

3. Not publishable in its current wording but with future possibilities of publication if the text is profoundly reformulated in accordance with the evaluations.

4. Not publishable without the possibility of reformulating the text.

In case 1, the editor will have scientific responsibility for the edition and will ensure that the pertinent considerations of the evaluation are materialized by the authors in the final version that is published. In case 2, it may be one of the previous external evaluators or a member of the Editorial Board who evaluates and reviews that the new text presented is in accordance with the indications received in the previous evaluation phase. In case 3 the manuscript will be rejected, but a new version of it may be submitted again, and its evaluation must begin from the beginning, as a new article; It must be taken into account that this process can only be repeated once and that a single new negative evaluative judgment (including the editor's prior review) will mean the final rejection of the text. In case 4 the manuscript will be rejected, without the possibility of resubmitting a new version of it.

For case 1, a maximum of one month will be available to respond to the requested changes, while in case 2 the period will be two months. In scenario 3 this period will be extended to a maximum of six months. In all cases, along with the new version, a memorandum (cover letter) must be provided detailing the changes made. The review flow of the original will be developed through the journal's OJS platform.

Texts admitted for publication but with important modifications (case 2) may have up to two evaluation processes of their revised version. A negative evaluative judgment in the second review will mean the definitive non-publication of the text.

The evaluation of the reviews will be carried out exclusively by the Editorial Board, which may also commission their preparation. In this case, it will be sufficient to have a single evaluation and a single second revised version will be allowed if the initial one does not obtain a positive evaluation without objections.

In any of the possible scenarios, the evaluation reports, together with a final reasoned text from the scientific person responsible for the edition, will be communicated to the authors.

For the correction of proofs of those originals accepted for publication, a maximum period of one month will be available from the corresponding sending by the Research Department of the CENTRA Foundation.

The initial submission of a manuscript implies reading and acceptance by the authors of these editorial criteria, as well as the writing standards contained in this document.