Peer Reviewed

All manuscripts submitted to Religación Press are reviewed in the first instance by the editorial team and in the second instance sent to the Peer Review process.

During the peer review process, manuscripts are evaluated by academic experts in the respective subject matter. These reviewers are external to the publisher in order to avoid conflicts of interest and at the same time increase the quality of the publications.

For the purpose of early circulation, Religación Press endeavors to ensure that peer review does not exceed 6 weeks. 

Peer review components.

1. About the purpose of peer review.
Remember that peer review aims to determine whether the manuscript in question is appropriate for publication. This is based on factors such as the scientific quality and relevance of the manuscript, as well as the clarity of the writing among others, which helps to improve the quality of the research and presentation of the proposals before publication.
We ask you to make suggestions and constructive criticism, with respect to the work done by the author.
2. About the evaluation rubric.
For the evaluation of the text, a form will be provided on the web page, but you can also make more specific annotations and comments in the Microsoft Word file of the article.
- A form with specific items will be displayed, please read carefully and answer in each box. Remember that the form will be read by the editor and also the author.
- If you make annotations in the file, at the end of the submission of the review form, a section for uploading files will appear, please upload it there. Before uploading remember to remove your name from the file to keep the review double blind.
3. Suggestions.
-Initially do a quick read of the article, to get a general idea of the content.
-Review the components of the form so that you know which areas are important to the publisher and so that you pay more attention to the evaluation.
-Make a second reading and write down any comments and suggestions you think are necessary.
-If you have any questions, contact the editor who assigned the article to you.

Evaluation Criteria
Choose those definitions that correspond to the revised chapter.

Component	Yes	No
Its content is considered a valid and significant contribution to knowledge.
It clearly presents the development and structure of the research process.
Its content is structured and written in a manner appropriate to the area of knowledge.
Documentary sources. The work presents relevance, timeliness and reliability.
It uses only specific information and does not get bogged down in ideas that are not relevant to the objective of the article.
It makes unnecessary quotations and redundant, obvious explanations. Please indicate which ones, in one of the comment boxes.
Correctly divides and lists subtopics, facilitating reading. It uses all the sources listed in the bibliographical references at the end of the article.
Its content is considered as a valid and significant contribution to knowledge.
The writing is clear and the information is presented in an organized and chronological manner.
It maintains a synchronic order in the exposition of ideas, avoiding confusing the reader.
The ideas and proposals are adequately grounded.

 

TITLE
Does the title say precisely what the chapter is about?
Does it have a maximum of 20 words?
It does not use acronyms.
You may also give suggestions or alternatives for titles.
Comment 1
Write an observation that you consider important.
Comment 2
Write an observation that you consider important.
Comment 3
Write an observation that you consider important.
Observation 4
Write an observation that you consider important.
RECOMMENDATIONS
After having read and evaluated the article:
Mention the strengths of the article, make recommendations on the writing style always with the objective of helping the author(s) of the article/chapter.