Proceso de revisión por pares

Peer Review Process

Apuntes de Economía y Sociedad follows an editorial process designed to ensure scientific quality, thematic relevance, research integrity, and transparency in editorial decision-making. Research articles, review articles, and academic essays undergo external peer review under a double-anonymous model.

The editorial process comprises the following stages:

Manuscript submission.
Initial editorial screening.
Editorial assignment.
External peer review.
Communication of the decision.
Submission and verification of revisions.
Final editorial decision.
Copyediting and layout.
Proof review.
Publication.

1. Manuscript submission

Manuscripts must be submitted through the Journal’s Open Journal Systems platform. Before submitting a manuscript, authors must:

Consult the Instructions for Authors.
Use the current manuscript template.
Complete all required metadata accurately.
Provide complete information for all authors and co-authors.
Upload all required files and declarations.
Verify that every citation in the manuscript corresponds to an entry in the reference list and vice versa.

Individuals who do not have a user account must request its creation through the Journal’s official email address: apunteseconomia@ce.unanleon.edu.ni.

Once a manuscript has been submitted, communications concerning the editorial process will preferably be conducted through the platform.

2. Initial editorial screening

The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor will conduct a preliminary assessment to verify:

The manuscript’s alignment with the Journal’s aims and thematic scope.
Compliance with the Instructions for Authors and the manuscript template.
Submission of all required information and declarations.
The originality, relevance, and overall consistency of the contribution.
The accuracy and correspondence of in-text citations and reference-list entries.
The absence of information that could identify the authors in the file prepared for anonymous review.
The existence of potential ethical or editorial concerns.
The extent and nature of textual matches identified through similarity screening.
The inclusion of a data availability statement and, where applicable, the data, instruments, code, procedures, or other materials required to verify the findings.

As a guiding criterion, the Journal establishes an overall similarity score not exceeding 10%, after excluding bibliographic references, properly identified direct quotations, and other duly justified matches. The similarity score does not, by itself, constitute evidence of plagiarism or automatically determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected. The editorial team will assess the sources, extent, concentration, and nature of the identified matches.

When the similarity score exceeds the established criterion or relevant textual matches are identified, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for correction or clarification. It may also be rejected when there is sufficiently substantiated evidence of practices that contravene academic integrity.

For empirical or computational studies, the editorial screening will determine whether the information provided is sufficient to understand and verify the procedures followed. When necessary for the evaluation, the Journal may request the data, cleaned datasets, research instruments, code, protocols, analytical matrices, or other supporting materials. Any such request will be subject to applicable ethical, legal, contractual, and confidentiality restrictions.

Following the initial editorial screening, the manuscript may:

Proceed to peer review.
Be returned to the authors for revisions before peer review.
Be editorially rejected when it falls outside the Journal’s scope or presents substantial deficiencies.

Admission to this stage does not imply acceptance for publication.

3. Editorial assignment

Manuscripts that successfully complete the initial screening will be assigned to the appropriate editor according to the subject matter and nature of the contribution.

The editor will verify that the manuscript has been appropriately prepared for anonymous review and will select reviewers on the basis of their academic expertise, knowledge of the subject, availability, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.

4. External peer review

Research articles, review articles, and academic essays will be evaluated by at least two external reviewers under a double-anonymous peer review model. Under this model, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process.

Reviewers will assess the manuscript using the evaluation instrument established by the Journal and will consider, as applicable:

The originality and relevance of the contribution.
The clarity of the research problem, purpose, or objectives.
The relevance and currency of the theoretical foundation.
Methodological coherence and rigor.
The presentation, analysis, and discussion of the findings.
The consistency between the findings and the conclusions.
The quality, relevance, and currency of the references.
The academic writing and organization of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical and editorial principles.
The adequacy of the methodological description for understanding, verifying, and, where applicable, reproducing the procedures and findings.
The consistency among the data, analytical methods, and reported findings.
The availability of data, code, research instruments, and supporting materials, or an adequate explanation of any restrictions on access.

For the purposes of this policy, reproducibility refers to the possibility that another researcher can accurately understand the procedures followed and, where the nature of the study permits, verify the analyses and obtain consistent results using the same data, methods, instruments, or code.

When required for scientific evaluation, reviewers may request access, through the editor, to data, research instruments, code, protocols, analytical matrices, or other study-related materials. Such requests must be limited to the information necessary to assess the robustness of the procedures and findings and must respect applicable ethical, legal, and confidentiality restrictions.

Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that could affect their independence. They must decline the invitation when they lack the necessary expertise, cannot complete the review within the required period, or identify a conflict of interest.

5. Communication of the decision

Each reviewer will provide a reasoned recommendation. The possible recommendations are:

Accept for publication.
Accept subject to minor revisions.
Resubmit after major revisions.
Reject.

The decision communicated to the authors will incorporate the relevant observations of the reviewers and the editorial team while preserving reviewer anonymity.

When the reports contain conflicting assessments or do not provide a sufficient basis for an editorial decision, the editor may request an additional review.

Reviewers’ recommendations constitute an essential component of the assessment; however, the final editorial decision rests with the Journal.

6. Submission and verification of revisions

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

A revised version of the manuscript incorporating the requested changes.
A structured response to the comments received.
An academic justification when a recommendation has not been incorporated.

Responses must be clear, respectful, and sufficiently detailed to allow the changes to be verified.

The revised manuscript may be assessed by the editor, returned to the original reviewers, or submitted to another reviewer, depending on the nature and extent of the requested revisions.

Unjustified failure to comply with editorial requirements or to respond within the specified period may result in closure of the submission. Authors may request an extension in a timely manner when justified circumstances exist.

7. Final editorial decision

After considering the reviewers’ reports, the revisions made, and the authors’ responses, the Editor-in-Chief or editorial team will make one of the following decisions:

Accept for publication.
Request further revisions.
Reject the manuscript.

Acceptance is conditional upon compliance with the scientific, ethical, editorial, and formal requirements established by the Journal.

The decision will be communicated through the platform and must be supported by the evaluation outcomes and the applicable editorial criteria.

8. Copyediting and layout

Accepted manuscripts will proceed to editorial production, which may include:

Orthographic, grammatical, and stylistic editing.
Standardization of citations and references.
Review of tables, figures, and graphical elements.
Verification of metadata and editorial declarations.
Layout in accordance with the Journal’s visual identity.
Assignment of a DOI and other publication information, where applicable.

Changes introduced during this stage must not alter the scientific content or the meaning of the conclusions without the authors’ knowledge.

9. Proof review

Before publication, a typeset proof will be sent to the corresponding author for the identification of possible production errors.

At this stage, only specific corrections related to typographical errors, authorship information, affiliations, tables, figures, references, or problems introduced during production will be accepted. Substantial changes to the content will not be permitted unless they are essential and have received editorial approval.

The proof must be approved within the period specified by the Journal.

10. Publication

Once the final version has been approved, the article will be published on the Journal’s website under its continuous publication model and assigned to the corresponding volume and issue.

The published article will include the applicable metadata, identifiers, and editorial declarations. Following publication, any significant error will be addressed through the appropriate correction, erratum, retraction, or other editorial mechanism.

Additional considerations

The Journal will preserve the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviews, and communications generated throughout the editorial process.

Members of the editorial team and reviewers may not use or disclose information contained in an unpublished manuscript.

The Journal will ensure that editorial decisions are made independently, impartially, and on academic grounds. Authorship, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, academic position, or geographical origin must not influence the scientific assessment of a manuscript.

Editorials are commissioned or prepared by decision of the editorial team and do not necessarily undergo external peer review. Other contributions will be processed according to their nature and the applicable section policy.