Peer Evaluation Policy

The works received for publication will be subject to an initial review by the Editor to ensure compliance with the minimum requirements of the relevance of the topic and the format and writing style standards established in the publication policy. Papers that do not meet these requirements will be returned with comments for appropriate action. Papers that meet the minimum required criteria will be subject to a double-blind peer-review process, as detailed below.

         ● If the work is considered worthy of evaluation, the Editor of the Journal will submit it anonymously to two external evaluators. The evaluation team will consider the publication policies to guide their decision regarding the work. The Editor of the Journal will provide each member of the evaluation team with a rubric that has the evaluation criteria according to the type of work. If the evaluation partner does not match their recommendation, the article or creative work will be submitted to a third evaluation/arbitration resource.

           ● Once the comments and recommendations of the evaluation/arbitration team have been received, the Editor of the Journal decides one of three options: a) if the work is approved for publication without changes; b) if it is subject to mandatory changes and subject to resend, or c) if it has been rejected, following the following provisions:

          ● The evaluation time will last approximately two to three months, from when the work is received until the final publication decision.

        ● The description of the peer review processes is established and released by the Editorial Board to facilitate that the authors know the evaluation criteria. Both the Editorial Board and the International Advisory Board will always be willing to address any dispute that arises during the evaluation process.

         ● The Editor of the Journal assumes the responsibility of notifying the author or authors of the phase of the editorial process in which the work submitted is, as well as the decisions taken.

Peer Evaluation/Arbitration

       ● The evaluation teams will be constituted by professors, researchers, and professionals with expertise in various areas of academic, research, and professional knowledge of Puerto Rico and other countries and with experience in quality publications.

        ● The work is anonymous and unpaid.

        ● The primary functions are to read and analyze the submitted works to:

                    ● Determine the validity of ideas, results, themes, arguments and conclusions, synthesis or reflections, as well as the potential impact of the work presented for social sciences, social policy, social work, and related professions.

                    ● Evaluate the originality of the works, quality in writing, the writing's  internal organization, and the logic of the argumentation.

                    ● It is expected that participants of the evaluation of works be unbiased, avoid using the unpublished knowledge, and maintain confidentiality.

                    ● Should use the rubrics provided for the evaluation of each type of article or creative work and provide specific comments for the authors to improve the writing or content. The rubrics will provide for the arbitrator to determine if the work is: (a) recommendation for publication without changes; (b) if the publication should be conditioned to changes; or (c) is not recommended for publication.