Editorial Process

The editorial process of Argumentos is managed through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, an open-source software for scholarly journal management developed by the Public Knowledge Project under the GNU General Public License. Authors must use this platform for manuscript submission and for tracking the entire editorial process (see Instructions for Authors).

Simultaneous submission of manuscripts

Before submitting a manuscript, authors must ensure that it is not under consideration by another journal. Manuscripts must not be submitted simultaneously to more than one publication. While a manuscript is under review or in the editorial process at Argumentos, it must not be submitted elsewhere.

Simultaneous submission constitutes a breach of editorial ethics and a misuse of reviewers’ academic work; therefore, it will result in the immediate rejection of the manuscript (see Ethics and Best Practices Policy).

Stages of the editorial process

First stage: initial screening

Submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editor to verify that they:

are original and unpublished;
do not involve plagiarism (see Anti-plagiarism Policy);
meet minimum standards of writing quality and academic rigor;
fall within the journal’s scope and aims (see Focus and Scope).

Book reviews and thesis abstracts are evaluated by the Editorial Board and are not subject to peer review.

Possible outcomes:

The manuscript is sent for peer review.
The author is asked to provide additional information or make minor revisions.
The manuscript is rejected.

Timeframe: the corresponding author will be notified within no more than three (3) weeks.

Second stage: peer review (double-blind)

Argumentos follows a double-blind peer review process (see Peer evaluation).

Manuscripts are anonymized—including the removal of metadata—and sent to two external reviewers along with an evaluation form that includes academic quality criteria (see Review Forms).

A review is considered favorable when the 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 manuscript.

In case of conflicting reviews, the editor may:

request a third evaluation; or
make an editorial decision, if necessary in consultation with the Editorial Board.

Possible outcomes:

Acceptance without changes or with minor revisions.
Conditional acceptance subject to revisions.
Rejection.

In cases of acceptance (1 and 2), authors will receive reviewers’ and editor’s comments. If revisions are required, authors must:

submit a revised version with changes clearly indicated;
provide a detailed response to reviewers.

The editor may request an additional round of review. If authors disagree with any comment, they must provide an academic justification.

In the event of rejection, the manuscript is released and may be submitted to another journal.

A rejected manuscript (3) may be resubmitted only if:

the reasons for rejection allow it (e.g., manuscripts rejected for plagiarism will not be reconsidered);
a substantially revised version is submitted, along with a written explanation of the changes made.

In such cases, the manuscript will be treated as a new submission.

Timeframe: this stage may take between three (3) and four (4) weeks, depending on reviewer availability.