Peer Review Process

Peer-review process

As academic policy, the evaluation process is constructive. Therefore, it is expected that peer reviewers, in addition to assessing the academic content of the article, contribute with criticism and recommendations for its improvement. 

Therefore, we seek that each author that submits a manuscript to the evaluation process of the journal could receive comments, regardless of whether the article is accepted or not, that will allow him/her to enrich and rethink the manuscript. it should be noted that the article's author receives observations without knowing the identity of its peer evaluator, given the confidential and anonymous nature of the evaluation, typical of a peer reviewed journal. 

The first part of this evaluation (criteria and concept) will be sent to the authors, so we request the use of a concrete, positive and constructive language.

The assessment has three parts: 1) evaluation of the article, 2) recommendation to the editorial committee and 3) information of the peer reviewer.

magis is a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, all papers are subject to a rigorous evaluation process consisting of different stages and taking two to five months to be completed, depending on the amount of unpublished papers received. The evaluation in magis is carried out under the method of academic opinion by blind peers. The stages are as follows:

  1. Receipt of unpublished papers: once magis receives an unpublished paper, the author(s) is sent an e-mail message informing him/her that the checking process is started. It is indispensable to attach the signed Letter of Conditions, the filled Author’s and Research Info Form and the anonymous file containing the unpublished paper full text, as indicated in number 5 herein, so that the unpublished paper be received by magis.
  2. Checking of conformity regarding the provisions by magis: in this second stage, the edition team checks that the unpublished paper conforms the formal requirements provided in number 3 herein to prepare the document. To start the process of the first checking, it is a must to submit the three files indicated above. If any of these files is not uploaded to the platform, the process shall not be started and the author shall be notified about it to his/her email. Once the pending file(s) is uploaded to the platform, the checking process shall begin.
  3. Analysis of the theme relevancy and the basic qualities of the academic writing: firstly, the edition team reads the unpublished paper and determines whether it satisfies the basic criteria of academic writing and whether it deals with a theme appropriate for the field of our journal. If so, then the process goes on. Otherwise, the author(s) is sent a message stating the reason why the unpublished paper was not accepted in magis. During this stage, the Turnitin platform is used to detect plagiarism in the manuscript.
  4. First blind evaluation by expert peers: once the edition team determines that the unpublished paper matches the thematic field of our journal and conforms the formal requirements provided herein, the evaluation process starts based on the method of academic opinion by blind peers. The editor requests some highstanding experts in the specific theme dealt with in the unpublished paper to evaluate it anonymously. The number of experts evaluating each paper may vary. To start the process, magis requires that at least 2 expert peers accept to check the paper; though it is possible to call any additional expert peer. These peer experts are not part of the editorial committee and they usually are from countries other than the author’s one. The editor shall send each peer evaluator (a) the unpublished paper without any information about the author, (b) this Guidelines document, and (c) an Evaluation Form according to the type of paper (reflective article, scientific and technological research article, and review article). Each peer evaluator shall have a deadline of two weeks to process and submit his/her academic opinion.
  5. Peer evaluators are requested to fill in the evaluation form, where he/she: (a) indicates whether the document conforms or not the formal and content requirements, (b) provides an opinion consisting in a general assessment of the paper and including his/her suggestions, contributions, observations, and (c) recommends to publish or not the paper according to a scale providing the option to suggest that the unpublished paper be published after some amendments or deep modifications (the Evaluation Form for the scientific and technological research articles has been disclosed both printed on paper and online). In addition, the Evaluation Form asks the peer evaluators if they are available to evaluate the new version prepared by the author now based on the peer evaluator’s observations, so as to continue the process until having the unpublished paper in a version deemed suitable for publication.
  6. Preparation of the unpublished paper second version, based on the observations by the peer evaluators; removal or rejection of unpublished papers: after the editor receives the opinions by the expert evaluators, he/she prepares a document gathering the observations and removes all the information related to the author’s identity. This new document is sent to the author(s) and the editorial team defines whether the author(s) can submit a new version of the unpublished paper after implementing the observations by the evaluators or, otherwise, the unpublished paper is removed from the process. In the case that the author(s) is interested in submitting the new version to go on with the evaluation process, then the editor sets a deadline for submitting it based on how deep the amendments/modifications should be. When the author(s) decides not to continue the process, his/her unpublished paper is removed from our journal database and the evaluators are informed that there is not a new version to be evaluated. In the case that the unpublished paper is rejected outright by the evaluators, the author(s) is informed that the paper shall be removed and the opinions shall be attached to the message. Since some part of the publishing policy in magis is intended to contribute to improve the processes of writing articles, the authors are always provided with the opinions by the evaluators, even so in the cases of the unpublished papers removed or rejected outright.
  7. Verification by the peer evaluators of the amendments to the second version: after receiving the new version of the paper, the editor forwards it to each evaluator as an anonymous document together with the evaluation each peer expert did on the first version. Each evaluator receives this second version with the evaluation he/she did on the first one, in order to verify whether the suggested amendments were taken into account by the author(s). Based on this criterion, each peer expert evaluates the unpublished paper again and tells the editor either if there is a need to do more amendments or that the paper can be forwarded to the editorial committee for deliberation.
  8. Preparation of the final version: once the editor receives the new opinions by the peer evaluators, when two/three of them agree on that the unpublished paper is ready, as it is, for publication, the article begins the editorial process. When the evaluators, or either any of them, think that the unpublished paper needs some other amendments, the editor prepares a new document compiling the evaluations while keeping the peer experts anonymous. Then the editor forwards this document to the author(s) and the previous step is repeated until the evaluators deem the unpublished paper suitable for publication. Anonymity shall be kept throughout the process for both the authors and the evaluators. This way the process ends up with a final version.

Once the paper is approved by the editorial committee, the paper starts the preparation for publication. Throughout this process, the paper is examined in depth to confirm that it is an unpublished work and is then formatted to conform the editorial standards of our journal. Consequently, the authors may be asked to do some changes to the paper. They shall be notified by e-mail about the changes required and the deadline, either 1 or 2 weeks. As this process consists of different stages, the change requests can be send in different time points. In addition, during this process the authors are requested the ORCID code and partial use license signed.

Sometimes, the author(s) sends answers and meta-observations to the comments by the evaluators in order to either explain or clarify the reasons why the author(s) is not making certain amendments as suggested by the evaluators. In such cases, a blind dialogue is started between the evaluator and the author(s), which is mediated by the editorial committee. This dialogue is intended as a discussion space to deliberate on the amendments/modifications. Though, in any case, the approval or rejection is up to the opinion by the expert evaluator.

In the case that despite having three evaluators in the process, their concepts are quite dissimilar and contradictory, magis shall resort to a fourth evaluator to resolve the issue. The process to follow by the fourth evaluator is the same as with the other ones.

 

  • Compensation

Each evaluator shall receive a certificate recognizing their participation as an academic peer.

 

  • Standards for your unpublished paper
  1. 1. The unpublished paper shall include an abstract between 75 and 100 words stating concisely an introduction, the objectives, methodology and main results. Likewise, it shall contain some keywords accounting for the topics dealt with in the paper, according to the UNESCO thesaurus. The abstract and keywords are obligatory items in the unpublished papers, except for the special contributions like presentations, opening lectures, conferences, and so on, where these items are optional.

  2. 2. The unpublished paper shall be submitted in a Microsoft Word® file (97 and subsequent versions), formatted for letter-size paper, typeface Times New Roman, font size 12, double line spacing, margins of 3 cm, and page number in the right top corner of the page. The unpublished paper full length shall be 20 to 30 pages, including notes and references. The title shall not be longer than 10 words. The figures, images, tables and graphs shall have their own title and be numbered; in addition, they shall include an indication whether they have been created by the author or, otherwise, provide the source information.

  3. 3. The unpublished papers shall conform the guidelines in the publication manual of the American Psychological Association (APA, 7th ed., 2019). Please check below a succinct account of some standards provided in the APA manual:

Citations
In this item we will provide you with some indications on how to include appropriately in your text the contribution(s) by other authors.

  1. Direct citations from the source (quotations)

This way of citing is used when you need to reproduce verbatim the work by other authors, or either yours. It contains the author’s name, year, and page the citation was taken from.

  1. When a verbatim citation is shorter than 40 words, it shall be embedded in the body text and indicated between quotations marks.

Example:
Regarding the disciplines, medicine, clinical psychology, anthropology, sociology and philosophy, among others, have conducted studies and readings of the body that are not finished off, since some other readings have stemmed from conceptions of the body as a bearer of social symbolisms in the photography, painting, cinema, theater, and literature, “possibilities of analysis that multiply when the need to build an explicit narrative of the body arises” (Morán, 1997, p. 147).

  1. In the cases that the citation is 40 words or longer, it shall be included as a separate paragraph with 2.4 cm indentation on the left, without quotations marks.

Example:
The body is both expression and word, it is a language that never stops accompanying the words; furthermore, (...) what is expressed with gestures and body movements is deemed more reliable, less controllable at will, than what is expressed by speech. Then, it can be said that the power of words lies essentially in the way they are uttered. (Bárcena, Tizio, Larrosa & Asencio, 2003, p. 19).

 

Where shall the author’s name, year and page of the verbatim citation be indicated?

In both citations, those shorter than 40 words and the longer ones:

  • When the author’s surname has been mentioned before the verbatim citation, the year shall be indicated between parentheses immediately after the author’s surname. After closing the quotation marks, the source page shall be indicated in another pair of parentheses.

Example:
On this regard, Fernando Bárcena, Hebe Tizio, Jorge Larrosa y José M. Asencio (2003) state the following: Bodies are places of existence, territories of memory, desperation and desire, or their longing for. But they are actually quite peculiar places, since, by being vindicated as one’s own, as one’s own territory, these vivid and existed bodies are an open space/time (.) the bodies are places of existence and there is no existence without a place, either over here or over there. The body is the place that opens to what occurs in it, enjoying, suffering, being born, dying, thinking, laughing (.) the body is an event of the existence (p. 25).

  • When the verbatim citation is embedded in the body text but the author’s surname has not been mentioned before it, then the author’s surname, year and source page shall be indicated between parentheses just after closing the quotation marks.

Example:
The consolidation of the Social Psychology started from a sociological approach, in which the representation was built through a significance, both individual and social, shaping the coherent structure of an object. The theory of social representations, still developing, provides that they are interpretation systems ruling our relation to the world and to the others, and that they drive and organize the behaviors and communications (Ruiz, 2003, p. 45).

 

  1. Non-literal citations or paraphrase

This way of citing corresponds to the cases when other author’s ideas are used but not reproduced verbatim, but stated in the new writer’s words. In these cases, the author’s name, year and source page shall be indicated.

  • When the author is mentioned just before paraphrasing his/her idea, the year of the work shall be indicated between parenthesis just after his/her surname.

Example:
This expectation is backed by the observations by Marc Howard Ross (1995) about the culture of conflict in some societies that carry on the violent acts.

  • When the paraphrased idea is stated without mentioning the author in it, the author’s surname and the year shall be indicated, between parentheses and separated by a comma, at the end of the idea.

Example:
In all of them, the starting points are the conflicts identified in an educational situation at the college like the evaluation, which involves many pedagogical dimensions that should be articulated with each other (Vargas, 2008).

  • In the infrequent cases when the author(s) and year of the work are mentioned within the text, these data shall not be indicated again.

Example:
In this vein, a study by Filippos Vlachos and Fotini Bonoti, in 2006, including 210 Greek children, 7 to 12 years old, who were assigned to do tasks like spontaneous writing, copying and dictating from the Luria-Nebraska neuropsychological battery, found that in the evaluated skills the high scores are distributed between boys and girls.

  • When the cited work is by two authors, each citation thereof shall include the first surname of each one.

Examples:
Reading is important because it is a communicative activity allowing the communication and to approach to the knowledge world (Cuervo & Flórez, 2004).

Children undergoing retardation in the development of communication, speech, and language before getting into the school may have difficulties, among others, to use the language to communicate and learn (Cuervo & Flórez, 2004).

  • When the cited work is by more than two authors and up to six, the first citation shall include the surnames of each one. The subsequent citations thereof shall indicate only the first author’s surname followed by the expression et al.

Example:
First citation of the work: The early development of the child in different areas will show that he/she has the skills and abilities expected for that age and, therefore, that he/she will have no problems when developing the activity that may affect the initial learning of reading (Flórez, Torrado, Arévalo, Mesa, Mondragón & Pérez, 2005).

Subsequent citations thereof: certain skills and abilities in keeping with their age (Flórez et al., 2005).

  • When the work is by more than six authors, the first and all subsequent citations shall indicate the first author’s surname and the expression et al.

Example:
It seems like these differences use to counterweight each other and help women because those verbal and discursive skills are greatly useful in the writing of research report articles, which are required in the higher levels of scientific education (Halpern et al., 2007).

  • As you can see in the examples above, when the cited work is by more than one author, the sign & [et or ampersand] shall be used just before the last author’s surname.

References
The References listing at the end of the text allows to identify the works and their authors cited therein. It shall include only those references cited in your unpublished paper. Suggested works, according to the background or related readings, shall be included under the item Bibliography.

The works in the References listing shall be entered in alphabetic order based on the first author’s surname.

In general, each Reference includes: author, year of publication, title, and publication info. Please check below the structure established to include as references some types of documents:

  1. Periodicals: published according to a given regularity

1.1. Journals numbered per release
Surname, name’s initials —either one or two—. (Year). Title of the article. Name of the journal, volume (number), starting page-ending page.

Example:
Vargas, M. V. (2008). Pedagogical Sense of Evaluation. A Case Study at the Science Faculty of the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Universitas Scientiarum, 13 (3), 252-257.

1.2. Journals with a general issue
Surname, First Name’s Initial—either one or two—. (Year). Title of the article. Title of the journal, volume, starting page-ending page.

Example:
Flórez, R., Torrado, M. C., Arévalo, I., Mesa, C., Mondragón, S. & Pérez, C. (2005). Metalinguistic Skills, Metacognitive Operations and their Relationships to the Reading and Writing Competence Levels: An Exploratory Study. Forma y Función (18), 15-44.

  • When the publication has a DOI [Digital Object Identifier], it shall be indicated after the period. This cases do not require any additional information for identification or retrieval.

Example:
Flórez, R., Restrepo, M. A. & Schwanenflugel, P. (2009). Promoting the Starting Literacy and Prevention of Difficulties in the Reading: A Teaching Experience at Preschool Classroom. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 27 (1), 79-96. DOI:10.1038/0278-6133.24.2.225.

  • When the publication does not have a DOI and was retrieved online, the URL of the main webpage of the periodical shall be indicated, based on the following format: Retrieved at: http://www.xxxxxxxx. com. It does not require the retrieval date.

Example:
Arredondo, V. (2007). Linking Paradigms: Higher Education-Society. Universidad Veracruzana and its Link to the Society. Retrieved at: http://www.anuies.mx/servicios/d_estrategicos/libros/lib53/145.htm

  1. Non-Periodical Publications
    Sources released as a unique publication: books, reports, manuals, audiovisuals and so on.

2.1. Full document
Surname, name initial —either one or two—. (Year). Title of the publication. Place of publication: publishing company or institution.

Example:
Worchel, S., Cooper, J., Goethals, G. R. & Olson, J. M. (eds.) (2002). Psicología social. México: Thomson.

2.2. Excerpts from a non-periodical publication
Surname, name initial —either one or two—. (Year). Chapter title. In editor’s surname, editor’s name initial (ed.). Title of the publication. Place of publication: publishing company or institution.

Example:
Meira-Cartea, P. Á. (2002). Global Environmental Problems and Environmental Education: An Approach from the Social Representations of the Climate Change. In Campillo, M. (ed.). El papel de la educación ambiental en la pedagogía social. Murcia: Diego Marín Editorial.