Article Review Process
As an academic policy, the review process is constructive in nature. Therefore, peer reviewers are expected to contribute criticism and recommendations for improvement, in addition to assessing the academic content of the article.
Therefore, we aim to ensure that every author who submits a manuscript to the journal's review process receives comments that, regardless of whether the article is accepted or not, will allow them to enrich and reconsider the manuscript. It should be noted that the author of the article receives comments without knowing who their peer reviewer was, given the confidential and anonymous nature of the review process, typical of a peer-reviewed journal.
The first part of the review (criteria and concept) will be sent to the authors; therefore, we request that they use concrete, positive, and constructive language.
The review consists of three parts: 1) evaluation of the article, 2) recommendation to the editorial committee, and 3) information about the peer reviewer.
As a peer-reviewed journal, magis subjects all articles to a rigorous evaluation process that takes place at various stages and takes between five and twelve months, depending on the number of manuscripts received, the nature of the manuscript, the availability of qualified reviewers, and the timing of the academic periods. magis evaluation is conducted through blind peer review. The stages are:
Manuscript reception: Once magis receives the manuscript, an email is sent to acknowledge receipt. For the manuscript to be received, it is essential to send the data form and the unpublished manuscript certification letter signed by all authors of the article, along with an anonymous file containing the body of the manuscript. The omission of any of these files is grounds for rejection.
Analysis of compliance with magis’ formal guidelines: In a second step, the editorial team reviews that the manuscript complies with the formal preparation requirements indicated. To begin the initial review process, it is essential to attach the three files mentioned above. If any of the files are not attached, the manuscript will not be processed, and the author will be notified via email of the situation.
Analysis of thematic relevance and basic conditions of academic writing: The editorial team then reads the manuscript and determines whether it meets the basic parameters of academic writing and is consistent with the journal's subject area. If so, the process continues. Otherwise, the authors are contacted to explain why the manuscript is not accepted by magis. During this stage, the Turnitin platform is used to detect plagiarism and the use of AI in the manuscript.
Review by the editorial board (subject editors): Once the editorial team determines that the manuscript corresponds to the journal's subject area and meets its formal requirements, the editorial board anonymously reviews the manuscript, determining whether to continue the process or withdraw it due to extensive adjustments. The committee may suggest adjustments, which will be attached to the reviewers' opinions and must be made as a condition for the article's eventual publication.
First blind peer review: After the article is reviewed by the editorial committee and approved for eventual publication, even if adjustments to improve it are requested, the evaluation process begins under the double-blind academic review modality by external peers. For this process, the editorial assistant asks several high-level experts in the specific subject of the manuscript and the methodology used to evaluate it anonymously. The number of experts evaluating each article may vary. To initiate the process, a minimum of two expert peers are expected to agree to review the manuscript, but more may be invited, depending on the comments of the initial two peers. These experts are external to the editorial committee and generally from countries other than the authors'. The editorial assistant sends each peer reviewer a) the manuscript without any reference to its authors, b) this publication standards document, and c) an evaluation form in accordance with the nature of the article (reflection, scientific and technological research, and review), and assigns them a period of two weeks to prepare and submit their opinion.
The review form asks peers to: a) indicate whether or not the form and content criteria have been met; b) develop a general assessment of the article, including suggestions, contributions, and observations; and c) recommend its publication or not, based on a scale that includes the possibility of proposing publication with certain modifications or with major modifications. Additionally, the review form asks peers if they are willing to evaluate the new version prepared by the authors based on their observations, and continue the process until they consider the manuscript suitable for publication.
Preparation of the second version of the manuscript, based on the peer reviewers' observations; withdrawal or rejection of manuscripts: Once the editorial team receives the expert reviewers' comments, they prepare a document that compiles their observations and eliminates all identifying information. Based on this, the editorial team determines whether the authors may submit a new version of the manuscript based on the reviewers' observations or whether it will be withdrawn from the process due to major adjustments. This document is then sent to the authors. If the authors are interested in submitting the new version to continue the review process, the editor assigns a submission date based on the depth of the adjustments that need to be made. If the authors decide not to continue the process, the manuscript is withdrawn from the journal's database. If the manuscript is rejected entirely by the reviewers, the authors are informed that it will be withdrawn, and the review comments are sent to them. Because part of magis' policy is to contribute to the improvement of article writing processes, authors always receive the reviewers' comments, even in the case of withdrawn or rejected manuscripts.
Review of the adjustments to the second version by peer reviewers: Upon receiving the new version of the article, the editorial team sends it to each reviewer, anonymously, along with the review of the first version submitted by each expert. This is to verify whether the suggested adjustments were taken into account by the authors. Based on this, each expert re-evaluates the article and indicates whether further adjustments are necessary or whether they consider the article suitable for publication.
Preparation of the final version: Once the editorial team receives the new concepts from the peer reviewers, if they all agree that the manuscript can be published as is, the article moves on to the editorial process (editing and layout). When the reviewers, or one of them, consider that adjustments to the manuscript are still necessary, the editorial team prepares a new document with the evaluations, ensuring the anonymity of the experts, sends it to the authors, and repeats the previous process until the reviewers consider the manuscript suitable for publication. The anonymity of both the authors and the reviewers is maintained at all times. This is how the final version is prepared.
Throughout the editorial process, the article is thoroughly reviewed to ensure that it is an original contribution and, furthermore, to ensure that it complies with the journal's editorial guidelines. As a result, authors may be asked for several adjustments. They are notified by email and have a period of 1 to 2 weeks to make the corresponding modifications. Because the process is carried out in different stages, adjustments may be requested at different times. Additionally, during this process, authors are asked for the ORCID code and the signed partial use license.
Occasionally, the author(s) send responses and meta-observations to the reviewers' comments to explain or clarify the reasons why certain suggested adjustments are, or are not, made to the manuscript. In these cases, a blind dialogue is established between the reviewer and the author, mediated by the editorial team, and is intended as a space for discussion to deliberate on the adjustments. In any case, the approval or rejection of the article depends on the opinion of the expert reviewer.
If, despite having three reviewers, the opinions are very dissimilar and controversial, a fourth reviewer is called in to resolve the matter. The process followed is the same as described above.
Compensation
Evaluators receive a certificate of participation as an academic peer evaluator.
Guidelines for submitting manuscripts to magis
- The manuscript must be submitted in Microsoft Word® (versions 97 and later), on letter-sized paper, using 12-point Times New Roman font, double-spaced, with 3-centimeter margins, and pagination in the top right corner of each page.
- The title must not exceed 12 words.
- The manuscript must include an analytical summary of a maximum of 200 words that summarizes the introduction, objectives, methodology, and main results.
- It must contain a maximum of 5 keywords, registered in the UNESCO Thesaurus, that summarize the topics addressed in the manuscript.
*The summary and keywords are required sections of a manuscript and must always be available in Spanish and English. If the article is written in a language other than these two, they must also be included.
- The manuscript must be a maximum of 8,000 words, including notes and references.
- Figures and tables must have titles and be numbered. Additionally, the authors' work or the source from which they were extracted must be indicated.
- All information that refers to the authors or allows their identification (project codes, names of specific research projects, etc.) must be removed from the manuscript to ensure the anonymity of the review process at all times. To this end, the guidelines for ensuring blind peer review should be reviewed.
- Articles must follow the guidelines of the American Psychological Association (APA) Publication Style Manual, 7th Edition.