Guidelines and Peer Review

Preliminary Check

Every contribution submitted to Revista Aurora undergoes, firstly, a preliminary assessment by the Editors that analyzes the suitability of the work according to the Journal's editorial line, its adequacy to the scope, aspects such as contribution and originality of the text, as well as, by checking Similarity/ Plagiarism (iThenticate/Turnitin) and artificial intelligence.

If plagiarism is found, as well as misuse of Artificial Intelligence, those responsible will be prohibited from submitting again to the journal for the next five years.

Peer review

Submissions that have gone through the editorial verification process are forwarded to two ad hoc evaluators specialized in the subject, who will serve as support to the editors, and a third reviewer may be consulted in case of conflict in the assessments. The review system is double blind: the names of the reviewers will remain confidential, and the names of the authors will also be omitted from the reviewers.

Modifications and/or corrections suggested by reviewers regarding the content and/or writing are passed on to the authors, who will have a limited period of time to make the required changes or justify their maintenance.

 Opinions may result in 4 types of evaluations: Accept; Accept with revisions; Submit again for evaluation; Reject.

The publication of works is subject to compliance with the recommendations of the referees. The final decision is made by the editorial committee, coordinated by the editor responsible for the evaluation.

Deadlines

The average time between submission and publication of articles, when accepted, is six months, in order to carefully complete the stages of authors' final reviews, grammatical review, standardization, layout, and editing.

Conflict of interests

Authors or reviewers must declare possible conflicts of interest in the submission or evaluation. In the case of authors, such conflict may take the form of some direct or institutional relationship with the editorial board, with possible evaluators, such as, for example, belonging to the same department as one of the editors, being or having been mentored or mentored by members of the editorial board. In the case of reviewers, some conflicts may be expressed by the knowledge or possibility of effective participation in the composition of the manuscript, having been supervised or supervised the work sent, being from the same institution as the authors or having some degree of kinship with one of them. Such elements do not prevent the submission or publication of the article, but will be directed in such a way as to avoid possible errors in fairness in the process.

Choice of reviewers

Reviewers are chosen from the database of reviewers registered in the journal's system. The reviewers are doctors, linked to postgraduate programs in Social Sciences and their related areas.

Revision criteria

The criteria for evaluating articles take into account relevance of the topic, originality of the contribution in the Journal's thematic areas, clarity of the text, adequacy of the bibliography, structuring and theoretical development, methodology used, conclusions and contribution offered to knowledge in the area.

The assessment is made based on the Assessment Form

 Guiding questions for the objective evaluation of the submission

General appreciation of the article

Analysis of the importance of the article for the area of ​​knowledge included.

Analysis of the scientific basis and method.

Are the objectives of the article well defined?

Does the text have clarity, coherence and objectivity?

Was the methodology followed exposed?

Is the article divided into sections and has an internal structure?

Are the arguments presented rigorous and dense?

Does the analysis performed correspond to the data presented?

Does the article meet the objectives it set out to achieve?

Is the article summary adequate? (It has objective, method and conclusion of the work).

The evaluator assigns a quality concept to the article, namely: excellent, good, regular, bad or terrible, which, together with the requirements listed above, fulfills a didactic role and contributes to the improvement of the work.

Tax Rate

The article rejection rate in 2023 was 40%.