Peer Review Process

 

Articles submitted for publication in the different sections of the journal are evaluated following the double-blind peer review system, guaranteeing the anonymity of authors and reviewers. Reviews are based exclusively on the scientific relevance, originality, clarity, and pertinence of the work presented. The confidentiality of the evaluation process and the anonymity of reviewers and authors, the evaluated content, the reasoned report issued in the evaluation, and any other communication issued by the Advisory Board is preserved at all times. Likewise, confidentiality will be maintained in the event of any complaints, claims or clarifications that may be made to the editorial team or to the persons in charge of the evaluation.

Articles and notes

The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board will first examine the academic quality and suitability of the paper. Those articles and notes initially receiving a positive evaluation are then sent to two external reviewers. The journal uses double-blind peer review.

In the case of notable discrepancies between the two reviewers, a third reviewer will be invited to evaluate.

The selection of external reviewers is the responsibility of the Editorial Board, which will take into account their academic and scientific merits, as well as their professional experience, including both national and international specialists. Members of the Advisory Board may also act as reviewers.

The external reviewers will assess the paper according to the following criteria:

1. Structure: aim, methodology, hypothesis, and results.
2. Originality of contribution: the content, data, and results should make a significant contribution.
3. Review of previously published works. The paper must also contain up-to-date bibliographical references.
4. Scientific and methodological rigour.
5. Relevance of contribution.
6. Formal aspects: the text should be concise, coherent, clear, and well-written.

The scoring scale is as follows: Poor, Acceptable, Good, and Outstanding. Reviewers can make all the observations and suggestions they consider appropriate. The review process takes from three to four months.

Based on the review outcome, the Editor-in-Chief will make a decision on whether to publish the paper. The Editor-in-Chief will communicate the decision to the author and state the reasons that motivate the acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript.

All articles and notes accepted for publication in Philologica Canariensia must have two positive reviews submitted by experts who are external to the Editorial Board.

Articles and notes may be signed by several authors. In the case of collective authorship, our journal's editorial policy requires that the authors provide information in relation to the criteria chosen to decide the order of the authorship and on the specific contribution made by each one of them to the papers submitted for publishing.

Book reviews

Book reviews published in Philologica Canariensia are also subject to peer review. The same criteria used for articles and notes apply to book reviews. The review process takes one month.

Monographic Dossier

In order to be published, contributions to the monograph section must also have two positive evaluation reports issued by experts outside the Editorial Board of the journal. In this sense, the evaluation of these papers follows the same model and guidelines as for the articles, notes, and reviews sections. The evaluation process lasts approximately three to four months.