Blind peer review process

The Scientific and Arbitrated Journal of Social Sciences and Social Work: Weaver, will receive articles that correspond to theoretical or empirical works in the field of training. Types of papers include: scientific research articles and theoretical-reflective articles. All articles undergo a rigorous process that considers the following phases:

• Receipt of the manuscript.
• Initial review.
• Blind evaluation of external pairs.
• Second version of the manuscript.
• Second round of review.
• Final opinion.

Receipt of the manuscript: Upon receipt of the manuscript sent to the Scientific and Arbitrated Journal of Social Sciences and Social Work: Weaver, an email is sent to the author (s) through the journal platform informing that it will begin to the review process.

Initial review: The editorial team makes an initial review of the manuscript, taking care of its thematic relevance and compliance with the formal criteria established by the journal. If the publishing team determines that the manuscript meets the minimum criteria to continue its revision, the author / s are requested to send a letter of originality and transfer of rights to the Scientific and Arbitrated Journal of Social Sciences and Social Work : Weaver, declaring that the article has not been published or sent simultaneously to another magazine. Next, two blind evaluators are assigned to start the evaluation process. If the article does not meet the criteria of thematic relevance, novelty and editorial standards, the article is rejected.

Blind evaluation of external peers: When the editorial team decides that the article can be sent for external evaluation, two blind evaluators are assigned, who, through the journal platform, complete the respective evaluation guideline, either for an article theoretical or research.

The evaluation concludes with an opinion indicating whether a manuscript is: Accepted, Accepted with minor modifications, Accepted with major modifications, or Rejected. In the evaluation format, peers are asked to: a). indicate the fulfillment or not of criteria of form and content; b). Carry out a general assessment of the article including suggestions and / or contributions.

In case of discrepancies between the evaluators' opinions, the manuscript is sent to a third evaluator and with this third opinion, the editorial committee makes the decision to reject or send the article for modification. The evaluators correspond to academic experts on the subject, external to the editorial committee and, preferably, from countries with a different geographical location than the authors of the article.

Second version of the manuscript: Based on the observations and contributions of the peer reviewers, the editor prepares a document that includes the suggestions and removes all information that allows them to be identified. This document is sent to the authors, who decide: if they send a new version of their manuscript, based on the evaluators' observations, or if they abandon the process. In the event that the authors determine to send the new version to continue the evaluation process, the publishing team assigns a delivery date according to the magnitude of the observations and modifications to be made by the author (s) (date fluctuates between 2 3 weeks). If the authors decide not to continue in the process, the manuscript is withdrawn from the journal database and the evaluators are informed that there will be no new versions for evaluation.

In the event that the article is rejected by the evaluators, the author (s) are informed through a letter in which the suggestions made by the evaluators are sent.

Second round of review: The editor receives a new version of the article and sends it to the evaluators of the first version anonymously, in order to check if the adjustments suggested by them were considered by the author / s. For this, the first version, its first evaluation and the new version of the article are sent, based on this, each evaluator evaluates the new manuscript and indicates to the editor if it is necessary to make new modifications or if it considers that the article may already be published.

Final opinion: once the editor receives the new evaluations from the peer reviewers, together with the editorial team, the overall evaluation of the manuscript is analyzed and approval or rejection for publication is carried out.

When the evaluators consider that adjustments to the manuscript are still necessary, the editor prepares a new document with the evaluations, taking care of the anonymity of the experts, and sends the authors and repeats the previous process until the evaluators consider that the manuscript can be published. In all instances, the anonymity of both the authors and the evaluators is maintained. In this way the final version is prepared.