Peer evaluation process. Evaluation form.

1) Once the manuscript is received, which must be unpublished, it is sent to the attention of the Editorial Board, which will examine its content, ensuring its consistency with any of the topics of interest to LÓGOI Revista de Filosofía, checking that it has the extension, the methodology and synderesis required. If these requirements are not met, the author or authors are warned about the situation, recommending the incorporation of a minimum of objectively detailed conditions or the impossibility of their admission.

2) If the required standards are met, the author or authors are notified of receipt of the manuscript, while it is sent to two referees under the “double-blind” modality for their expert opinion. They review in detail all aspects related to the form and substance of the work, indicating in the corresponding form the observations and qualifications they consider appropriate. Once the arbitration is concluded, the manuscript must be returned with the corresponding evaluation form to the editors.

3) The Editorial Board is responsible for acting with due reserve in relation to the protection of the identity of the referee and their respective evaluation.

4) The Editorial Board assumes the commitment to keep the name of the author or authors of the works submitted to the referees safe.

5) For the selection of an evaluating referee, it is necessary to consider his or her recognized authority as a specialist in the area, in addition to possessing prudence and discretion in the handling of the submitted documents.

6) The director of LÓGOI Revista de Filosofía will give the experts, in addition to the work, a form that will collect their opinion and a copy of the rules for the presentation of collaborations.

7) Once the collaboration has been submitted to the corresponding arbitrators, a period of 30 days from receipt will be waited for their opinion; If at the end of this the requested response is not obtained, it will be sent again to arbitration with another expert designated by the Editorial Board.

8) The Editorial Board assumes the commitment to the referee that the collaboration will only be published if the author submits to the observations and suggestions made by the experts, serving as an intermediary for the purposes of making any clarifications it deems appropriate. In this case, the work must have the reliable endorsement of the qualified majority of the referees that the Editorial Board has appointed for the evaluation, otherwise it will be rejected.

9) There are four types of opinions that can result from arbitration: i) publishable; ii) publishable with minor modifications; iii) publishable with major modifications of form and content; and iv) not publishable.

10) In the first and second cases, the original manuscript, already refereed, is sent to the proofreader and editor to modify it according to the specifications required for its subsequent layout. In the third case, the work is returned to the author or authors, who must modify it in accordance with each and every one of the recommendations made by the referees. Once the corrections have been made, they must send the modified manuscript to the editors, who will ensure that it corresponds to the considerations included in the arbitration form. However, if there are discrepancies in the type of corrections, the Editorial Board will submit the work to a new arbitration and if approved, the author or authors will be notified of the publication of their collaboration. Finally, in the last case, the author(s) are informed about the result of the arbitration, indicating the reasons and arguments for its rejection.

11) When the refereed manuscript corresponds to assessments i) or ii), the author or authors receive from the director of the journal a formal acceptance letter which also indicates in which volume their manuscript will be published. Typically, this letter is sent via email and then a printed version, along with two copies of the magazine.

evaluation form.

Aspects to be evaluated	Low	Medium	High	Not applicable
1.- Summary
2.- Title. It corresponds to the expectations of the work
3.- The Descriptors are appropriate
4.- Clarity of the objectives
5.- Support of previous studies
6.- Methodology
7.- Originality
8.- Expository coherence
9.- Writing
10.- Relevance of the bibliography
11.- Solidity of the conclusions
12.- Correct use of the citation style

• Publishable ( )

•  

  Publishable with minor observations ( )

•  

  Publishable with major observations ( )

•  

  Not publishable ( )

 

Judgment process

In the first phase, the Editorial Committee will select the articles that correspond to the thematic areas covered in the journal and that meet the academic requirements essential for a scientific article. In the second phase, the contributions will be submitted to the opinion of two specialists in the corresponding subject.

Once the Editorial Committee has determined that the submission meets all the established application requirements, the judgment process will begin.

When the author is part of the UCAB staff, his or her work will necessarily be ruled by referees external to this institution. Otherwise, the arbitration may be internal or external to the UCAB. If there is a contradiction between both opinions, a third evaluation will be carried out, which will be considered final. The ruling process will be secret and no nominal information will be given about it.

The writings submitted for publication in the articles section will be subjected to double-blind peer review. Contributions for this section must be free of information that allows the author to be identified. Therefore, the name and affiliation should not appear anywhere in the manuscript. References to the author's previous works must be made in the third person.

The peer evaluation process will take a minimum of five and a maximum of seven months. During the evaluation process, the anonymity of the authors and peer reviewers will be guaranteed. The peer evaluators will be academics with national or international recognition in the subject of the writing. The journal has evaluators external to the institution in order to guarantee the accuracy of the review process.

The writings submitted for publication in the communications, essays, discussions, and reviews section will be submitted to the single-blind review system. The Editorial Committee may make recommendations of substance and form that enrich the quality of the work.

Once the evaluations have been issued, the minutes of the opinion will be sent to the authors; These will have a period of no more than three weeks to deliver the final version of the article with the pertinent corrections. The Editorial Committee of the journal will compare the final version with the opinions and inform the authors in which issue of the journal their work will be published. Without exception, accepted contributions will undergo a style correction based on the linguistic standard of the Spanish language, and their publication will be subject to the availability of space in each issue. In all phases the decision will be final.

Authors interested in submitting their contributions can consult the guidelines for authors found at the following link:

https://revistasenlinea.saber.ucab.edu.ve/index.php/logoi/information/authors

The authors are responsible for the requested changes and suggestions made by the referees and the Editorial Committee of the journal. All writings must indicate whether there is any conflict of interest, as well as any source of financing received. The articles published here must not have been submitted to other journals simultaneously to be considered, nor have they been published in full-length memoirs, previous electronic publications or in another language. The authors must sign a letter of originality of the article and transfer of rights.