Editorial process
Editorial flow: acceptance and rejection criteria, peer review and evaluation process
Segle XX, revista catalana d’història uses the double-blind peer-reviewed method, maintaining the anonymity of both the author and the reviewers. All articles submitted to the journal are peer-reviewed following the following procedure:
1. Initial assessment. Criteria for acceptance and refection.
The articles received are reviewed by the Editorial Committee, which checks whether they meet the established formal criteria and the rules of the journal, as well as the rigor and originality of the research. In this first phase, the articles will be subjected to the plagiarism detection tool. Authors will first receive an acknowledgement of receipt of their proposal. Contributions that do not pass this stage will be rejected and the authors will be informed.
The articles commissioned by the Editorial Board and the monographic issues, coordinated by guest editors, will also be reviewed by the journal’s editors and evaluated anonymously.
Book reviews are generally not peer-reviewed, but they are reviewed by an internal editor, and changes may be requested to the author. They are only published after being approved by the editors.
2. Evaluation by the reviewers, review process and evaluation and publication criteria.
Articles that pass the first stage of evaluation within the Committee will be evaluated by the double-blind system and sent to at least two anonymous and independent reviewers from the editorial team and Committee, who must judge the appropriateness of their publication and, if applicable, must establish the appropriate recommendations or indications. At least one of the evaluators will always come from an institution outside the University of Barcelona and occasionally, if the specificity of the article requires it, one of the peer reviewers may be chosen from among the members of the journal’s Advisory Board.
The evaluators have evaluation criteria, which include considering the gender perspective in the evaluation reports and the review of manuscripts (whether they include a sex/gender-disaggregated analysis and whether the relevance and limitations of the research, the discussion, and the collection of results are addressed). The articles accepted, accepted with modifications or rejected will be based on the motivations in accordance with the reasoned answer given by the evaluators. If the evaluations and recommendations of the reviewers are contradictory, a third report can be requested from an additional evaluator.
The Editorial Committee, in accordance with its protocol for reasoned communication of editorial decisions, will respond to the authors of the received manuscripts, notifying them of the reasons for their acceptance, acceptance with modifications, or rejection within a period of no more than 6 months. Within the established period, the authors will be informed on the results of the evaluation reports. The decision to publish an article may be conditioned on the introduction of modifications in the original text, in accordance with the criteria of the evaluators and the editor. The recommendations made by them will be detailed to the authors by the editor or co-editors. In case of favourable reports, the authors will receive a new confirmation from the journal at the time of forwarding their text with the recommendations already incorporated.
The final version, in the same way as the previous ones, will be sent to the editor preferably through the OJS platform where the journal is hosted.
The editor will inform the author or authors about the final acceptance of the article and, if applicable, will inform him or them on the number in which it will be published.
The average period for an article to be published is 8 months, with a maximum time of one year from the moment of receipt of the original.
More information about the editorial process followed by submissions: Criteria for evaluation, selection, acceptance or rejection, and publication of contributions. Editorial flow, review process, proofreading and estimated time.
3. Panel of reviewers and reviewers
