Editorial Process
Editorial Process
The editorial process of Argumentos is carried out through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, an open-source journal management software developed and distributed by the Public Knowledge Project under the GNU General Public License. To submit an article to the journal and throughout the entire editorial process, authors must use this platform (see Instructions for Authors).
On the simultaneous submission of manuscripts
Before submitting a manuscript, authors should be aware that manuscripts may not be submitted simultaneously to more than one journal. While a manuscript is under evaluation or in the editing process at Argumentos, it must not be submitted to any other publication. Simultaneous submission constitutes a breach of good editorial practices and a disregard for the academic work of reviewers; therefore, it will result in the definitive rejection of the manuscript (see Ethics and Best Editorial Practices Policy).
The editorial process comprises three stages:
First Stage: Basic quality review and assessment of fit with the journal’s focus and scope
All submitted manuscripts are initially reviewed by the journal’s editor to verify that the work is original and unpublished, that it does not contain plagiarism (see Anti-plagiarism Policy), that it meets minimum standards of quality in terms of writing and scholarly rigor, and that it fits within the journal’s focus and scope (see Focus and Scope). Book reviews and thesis abstracts are reviewed by the Editorial Committee and do not undergo peer review.
Possible outcomes of this stage:
1. The article is sent for peer review.
2. The author is contacted to request additional information (e.g., in cases of suspected plagiarism, ethical issues related to authorship, etc.) or to request the correction of minor aspects of the manuscript (e.g., issues related to writing).
3. The article is rejected.
Timeline: In all cases, the corresponding author will be notified within a period not exceeding three weeks.
Second Stage: Double-blind peer review
For the evaluation of articles, Argumentos uses a double-blind peer review system (see Ethics and Best Editorial Practices Policy).
To this end, the manuscript is anonymized by removing names, affiliations, references that may identify the authors, as well as the metadata of the original document. The anonymized version is sent to two specialists along with an evaluation form that includes various criteria of academic quality (see Review Forms).
An evaluation is considered favorable when the total score assigned by each reviewer exceeds two-thirds of the maximum possible score. Based on two favorable evaluations, the editor decides on the publication of the article. In the event of discrepancies between reviewers’ reports, the editor may request a third evaluation or, if deemed appropriate, decide on the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript, possibly in consultation with members of the Editorial Committee.
Possible outcomes of this stage:
1. The article is accepted without changes or with minor revisions suggested by the editor or reviewers.
2. The article is accepted for publication subject to the implementation of revisions requested by the editor or reviewers.
3. The article is rejected. In the rejection notification, the article is explicitly released so that the author may—if they so wish—submit it to another publication.
In the first two cases, the author will receive anonymized comments from the reviewers, as well as feedback from the editor. If revisions are required, the author must submit a revised version of the manuscript with changes highlighted in a different font color, along with a detailed revision report. The manuscript may be sent again for peer review. If the author disagrees with any of the proposed changes, they must provide a written justification.
An author of a rejected article may resubmit it to the journal only if:
(i) the reasons for rejection allow for resubmission (for example, a manuscript previously rejected for plagiarism will not be reconsidered under any circumstances); and
(ii) the author provides a written explanation of the changes made to the manuscript, demonstrating that it constitutes a qualitatively different version from the original. In such cases, the manuscript must undergo a new evaluation process.
Timeline: This second stage may take between three and four weeks. The duration of the process may vary depending on the punctuality of the assigned reviewers.
Third Stage: Copyediting and layout
The article is sent for copyediting and layout. These processes often involve multiple queries to the author regarding details of the text to be published; therefore, the author’s commitment and prompt communication are required.
As the final step of this stage, the author will receive a proof of the final formatted version, ready for publication, for approval or for the correction of minor visual details. At this stage, substantial changes to the text or the addition of new sentences or paragraphs are not permitted.
Timeline: This stage usually lasts seven to eight weeks and concludes with publication in the journal.
For further information on manuscript formatting requirements at submission (including word limits), please refer to the Instructions for Authors.
