Proceso de Revisión

Details of the peer-review process of the texts submitted for publication in PASOS, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Heritage (ISSN 1695-7121).

Basic process of shielded peer review.

The entire process, from the registration of the text to the final decision, is recorded and dated in the history. Only the management, secretariat and members of the editorial board involved have access to this information.

Once the text and its metadata have been registered by the author at ojs.pasosonline.org, regardless of the section selected for its registration, an automatic email will be sent to the author indicating that the text has been uploaded correctly. Within 72 hours, a review of the alignment of the topic with the interests of the journal and compliance with the style guide will be carried out. If the text is not aligned, it will be rejected and the author will be informed of the reason. In case of non-compliance with the style guide, the author will be informed of the need for correction and will be put on hold.

Once this first phase has been completed, a section editor is assigned who will be responsible for selecting reviewers (at least three) and monitoring the text. At any time during the process, the editor can make reasoned decisions that are communicated to the author. Given the interdisciplinary nature of PASOS, depending on the area of specialisation of the subject matter and/or question dealt with in the work, the review process will begin within one month (depending on the availability of reviewers).

The evaluators have one week to accept or reject the review task and, if accepted, one month to incorporate their report into the system. The casuistry of each text in the process is always very varied and depends on the actions of many intervening actors. Possible situations, procedures followed and their immediate consequences are as follows:

Situation

Response

Consequence

One or both evaluators refuse to review the text

Another evaluator(s) is/are assigned

Delay of at least one month

The reports issued are divergent or slightly different

Both reports are summarised and the text is revised

Decision made and communicated to author(s)

Reports issued are contradictory

Assignment of a fourth evaluator is made

Delay of at least one month

One or both reports are considered insufficient by the editorial committee

Assignment of a fourth evaluator is made

Delay of at least one month

Report suggests slight modifications

Communication to the contact author (first author if not otherwise indicated)

Request to make the suggested changes within a maximum of one month (exceptionally, and at the request of the authors, this deadline may be extended) and resubmit

 

Second and subsequent revised submissions

The responsible editor reviews and decides whether it is necessary to resubmit to the reviewers who issued the initial report

Acceptance and Communication to the contact author (first author if not otherwise indicated)

 

Acceptance

Review by anti-plagiarism software. If everything is correct, it goes to initial layout and publication

Depending on acceptance date and waiting list it will enter the first issue with space for publication.

Report indicates the need for major modifications

Communication to the contact author (first author if not otherwise indicated)

Request to carry out a thorough revision of the aspects indicated within a maximum period of two months (exceptionally, and at the request of the authors, this period can be extended) and resubmit

 

Second and subsequent revised submissions

Re-submission to the reviewers who issued the initial report. Exceptionally, specialised members of the Scientific Committee may be consulted.

The process is repeated with the same approximate deadlines and the contact author (first author unless otherwise indicated) is informed of the result.

 

Acceptance

Review by anti-plagiarism software. If everything is correct, it goes to initial layout and publication

Depending on acceptance date and waiting list it will enter the first issue with space for publication.

Report indicates rejection of the text

Communication to the contact author (first author if nothing to the contrary is indicated)

Reasoned report of the rejection of the text is sent. In exceptional cases where the reviewers do not comment, the editorial committee usually reviews the text and, respecting the reviewers' criteria, issues a report.