Peer Review Process

EDITORIAL RULING

Authors who propose an article for possible publication in NOVA TELLVS should send the documentation (full and final version) indicated in the Guide for collaborators. Once the management of the journal verifies that the submission meets all the requirements for nomination, the text will be subject to editorial ruling which contemplates the following stages:

1. Attest a revision under the iThenticate tool approved by the Editorial Board for detection of similarity of texts; only after that will it be possible to continue with the following stages of the editorial ruling. If a possible plagiarism is detected or reported in a published text, the procedure to follow is the one that COPE summarizes in the diagram available at: http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines

2. Verify that the proposed text corresponds to the focus and scope of the journal.

3. Ensure that the text complies with each and every one of the indications noted in the requirements for the nomination and delivery of originals, as well as in the Guide for collaborators.

4. Ensure that the bibliography is relevant and up-to-date, and that it follows the editorial standards of NOVA TELLVS.

Once the postulated article accredits the editorial ruling, the contact author will be formally notified of the registration and initiation of the academic ruling process.

 

ACADEMIC RULING

The Direction of NOVA TELLVS receives the works and convenes a meeting of the Editorial Board, when it deems it appropriate, to consider the material that was approved by the editorial ruling. The Editorial Board reviews and validates, in the first instance, the contributions that will be submitted to the academic arbitration process.

The articles must favorably attest the process of academic ruling that will operate with strict adherence to the modality of double-blind peer review; the identity of the authors and of the arbitrators will remain anonymous:

1. The articles that approve the editorial ruling will be sent to two arbitrators proposed by the Editorial Board or by the Direction of the journal. For each of the postulated works, the arbitrators will be academic specialists in the subject (one can be national and another foreign, or both foreign). Once the text and the format for ruling have been received, the arbitrators will have 30 calendar days to carry out the review and deliver the result.

2. The ruling should be guided by academic criteria, be expressed in a respectful manner and take into account the intellectual freedom of authors. Any recommendation should, therefore, be aimed at fostering dialogue, exchange of ideas, and debate without imposing personal perspectives, methods, or considerations. The arbitrators will be responsible for reviewing the congruence of the text with respect to the field of study, the coherence between the academic contribution and the relevance of the findings described, as well as the topicality and relevance of the bibliography used.

3. The arbitrators shall issue a reasoned academic ruling on the relevance and academic quality of the proposed text and shall judge whether its publication is feasible. According to the rulings issued, the decision of the Direction of the journal will be:

a) Publishable.

b) Publishable conditioned to the accomplishment of the indicated changes.

c) Not-publishable.

The results of the academic ruling process will be undisputable in all cases.

4. If there is controversy in the results of the rulings, a third ruling will be requested to determine the publication of the article

5. In order to approve the publication of an article, at least two of the three rulings must be positive.

6. The Management of the journal will inform the authors of the final result of the opinions in a period no greater than three months from the date of receipt of the material.

a) If the work is Publishable, the proof of acceptance will be sent to the author.

b) If it is a Conditioned publication, the work will be returned for correction together with the respective rulings; depending on the quantity and depth of the observations, the authors will have one week or one month maximum to send the final version accompanied by a letter where they will explain in detail which changes they accepted and which they did not. The Direction of the journal will verify that the new version contains the changes suggested by the arbitrators.

c) In case of a text that has been ruled unpublishable, NOVA TELLVS will send the author the notification of rejection supported by the issued ruling.

7. Once the papers have been formed and orthographically corrected, the plans will be sent to the authors for their final review and validation, for which they will have 8 calendar days. Once this period has elapsed without a response, the article will be considered as tacitly approved. If the problems are not resolved by the author, the publication of his text will be suspended.

Note: Corrections may be sent via e-mail or delivered personally to the Direction of the journal.

8. NOVA TELLVS does not accept content modifications or major corrections on proof-printing.

9. The reviews and news will be the only collaborations that, after being reviewed by the academic editors, will not be sent for publication.

10. The maximum period between the reception of a document and its publication will be six months, as long as it passes the phase of editorial ruling and academic ruling.

11. In order to make the evaluation process more transparent, the dates of receipt and acceptance will appear in the published article.