Arbitration Process

The article evaluation process complies with the assignment process through the Open Journal System as shown in the following figure:

All announcements and interaction with authors are made through the journal portal, announcements are linked directly to email.

The process begins with the review of the submitted article. Within 15 days, the author receives information about the relevance of his or her article and compliance with the guidelines requested by the journal regarding content, format, and other editorial policies. The author makes the corrections and sends them again for review by the Editor of the BLC magazine within a maximum period of 15 days before the closing of the call. At this stage the work can be rejected without additional evaluation if it does not comply with the journal's policies or is accepted for peer evaluation.

The works may be rejected in this first evaluation because they do not meet the requirements of writing, presentation, structure or are not sufficiently original and/or relevant to the publication to be edited.

Peer Review.

The works accepted in this first stage begin the evaluation through the “double blind” process; the articles are sent to peer experts in the respective area, whose identities will not be known by the author and, in turn, the peer evaluators. nor will they know the identity(s) of the author(s).

Once the results of the evaluations have been received, the Editorial Committee meets and defines the response regarding the article evaluation process and communicates any of the following responses:

Accepted for publication without modifications: the article will be published as received and only spelling and style corrections will be made.

Accepted for publication with corrections: the work will be published once the authors make the corrections suggested by the evaluators. These will be reviewed by the editorial committee, who will decide whether they are accepted or not.

Rejected: The article is not recommended for publication.

If the work is accepted, but with the recommendation to make modifications, it will be returned to the author(s) along with the referees' recommendations so that they can prepare a new corrected version, for which they have the time indicated by the Committee. Editorial, within a maximum period of 15 calendar days.

The works are received by call, the works that arrive once the call has closed will be transferred to the next call and the initial review will be carried out once the next call has closed. Therefore, it is recommended that you adjust your submissions to the calls.

Unpublished works will be filed as rejected articles.

 

Peer Review

In this step, the editor sends the article to external reviewers. Each article will have at least two reviewers, who will have a total of three weeks to return the article with one of the following comments:

  • Accept (No changes required).
  • Changes required (The article cannot be published as is. The editor must inform the authors of the necessary corrections).
  • Send for new review (The article requires substantial changes. The editor must return the article to the author, and the author must make the required corrections. The author must then submit the article and undergo the review process again).
  • Send to a different journal (The article’s scope does not align with the journal’s scope).
  • Reject (The submitted manuscript must be rejected as is).
  • View comments (A comment section will be included in specific rejection cases, such as plagiarism or attempts of intellectual dishonesty).

The editor selects reviewers and evaluators based on their expertise and academic knowledge of a specific topic, which must align with that of the article. Another consideration is that the reviewers must have already gone through the research process and have recognition in the field for their contributions and ethical principles. If the reviewers believe they cannot review an article for any reason, they must inform the editor. Reasons for a reviewer not continuing the review process may include, among others, familial ties to the authors, prior knowledge of the article, or any other conflict of interest.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Double-blind peer review means that the identity of both the author and the reviewer is kept anonymous. If the reviewer does not know the identity of the authors, it prevents potential biases from forming. This ensures objectivity in the review process.

Once the evaluation is received, the author has two weeks to submit the corrected version of the manuscript. Afterward, the editor will have five weeks to make a final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the article. In case of disagreements between the editor and the reviewers, the editor will make the final decision. An important aspect to highlight is that all parties involved in the process (authors, editors, reviewers) will be able to verify the article’s status and will be notified of each step taken and each decision made. If all participants respect the indicated timeframes and follow the process accordingly, the article will go through the entire process in an estimated time of three months and two weeks, and it will be ready for publication.

The criteria followed to decide whether an article is accepted or not are available in the evaluation tool. These criteria are as follows:

  • The topic matches the areas of interest of the journal.
  • The article makes a significant contribution to the literature.
  • The information included is useful and helps solve an existing problem.
  • The article is new and has not been published before.
  • It is original or meta-analytical.
  • The proposed methodological design of the article is solid and fully relates to the problem addressed.
  • The results are addressed objectively.
  • The conclusions are consistent and show sufficient support.
  • The article is well-organized, coherent, and well-written in terms of mechanics and language use