Peer review

All postulates manuscripts to be published in the Journal of History go through an evaluation and are submitted to an editorial evaluation process that determines the thematic relevance addressed and the fulfillment with the editorial standards established by the Journal, performing the following procedure for the evaluation. All manuscripts will be received for email.

1. As the Journal of History has the model of an open window, each manuscript that is received is reviewed by the editor and co-editors (as) to verify the general thematic relevance and compliance with the norms established by the journal, thus beginning the evaluation process, communicating this to the authors.

 

2. The process of evaluation of the manuscripts is developed through two c hannels: 1) carried out by the co-edition of the Journal, in which the
fulfillment with the editing norms is verified.2) Requesting two evaluators for each work , under the double blind modality evaluation system, judging the quality of the content and the text as scientific communication. In case of discrepancy in the result of the evaluations, the Editor of the Magazine will decide on this situation. It will be understood, then, that in these cases the decision of publication of the works is of exclusive and unappealable competence of the Editor.
The invitation for evaluators is confidential

3. The evaluations are made according to the following criteria:
3.1. Originality of contents
-The work presented must be original and unpublished.
-Relevance of the developed theme.
-Impact in the field of knowledge of the discipline after its publication.

3.2.Argumentation.
- The work includes an appropriate and updated Bibliographic review on the subject.
- Solid theoretical foundations.
- The methodology used is flexible and innovative, presenting the way in which the understanding of the problem is addressed and explaining the context in which the research was conducted.
- Final and relevant discussion of the results.
- The conclusions and interpretations made are duly substantiated.
- Quality and clarity in the presentation of results.

3.3. Quality of communication
- Logical structure, concordant with the content and development of the article.
- The writing of the work allows a disciplinary understanding. - Writing and spelling according to the level of a scientific article.
- Relevant graphic content, sufficient and complementary to the information in the text.
3.4. Bibliographic sources of work
- Validity of the bibliographic sources consulted.
- Quality and relevance of the bibliography consulted.
3.5. Formal aspects
- Title of the article concise, specific and clear.
- Accurate and understandable summary that suitably synthesizes the content. No more than ten lines.
- Keywords appropriate for the content. Maximum five.

4. Upon receiving the results of the evaluations, these will be integrated into a single form that will be sent to each author, informing them of the result. If modifications are recommended, they must be incorporated by the authors.

5. The review of articles that have had to incorporate modifications, consists of a second reading by the same evaluators of the first round for each case, who will proceed to verify if the comments made were considered, and based on said verification, they will recommend or not its publication. In case of discrepancy in this instance of the process, the editor will review the arguments given by the evaluators and the corrected article, and will resolve accordingly. The final result of this second round will be communicated to the authors as appropriate, stating the reasons that support this decision.

6. Journal of History publishes a limited number of articles per edition, so once the articles recommended for publication are defined, the editors carry out the selection process in which they will evaluate according to the following criteria those that will constitute the content of the number:

6.1. Overall result of the evaluation by pairs (depending on the nature of the observations made and the quality of the corrections)
6.2. Degree of connection with the subject of the number (when it is thematic)
. 6.3. Originality of the problematic of the article.

7. Once the content of the edition has been resolved, the authors of the articles recommended for publication will be informed of the result of the selection.

Time for review

The average time of evaluation of a manuscript is approximately two months, depending on the duration of the evaluations per editor; varying if the authors must make the corrections indicated by the evaluators.