Detailed description of the article selection process

```html

Home › Detailed Article Selection Process

Detailed Article Selection Process

Step 1. Preliminary Verification

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor, according to the current editorial workflow. Indicative timeframe: up to 2 weeks from receipt of the manuscript.

Thematic and methodological relevance.
Complete and reliable authorship, affiliations and metadata.
Compliance with the template, manuscript type and supplementary documents.
Sufficient, current, international and relevant bibliography, with DOI where applicable.
Originality and research integrity.
Absence of plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, reference manipulation, undeclared substantial use of AI or other ethical violations.
Minimum standards of style, spelling and punctuation.

Step 2. Peer Review

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief and editorial team. Indicative timeframe: approximately 4 weeks, subject to reviewer availability. Each manuscript will be evaluated by two independent specialists under a double-blind review model. Reviewers will not be members of the editorial team of Ecos de la Academia and must declare any conflict of interest before accepting the review.

Reviewers will consider relevance and significance; title, abstract and keywords; introduction and theoretical foundation; methodological rigour; quality of results; depth of discussion; coherence of conclusions; currency and quality of sources; contribution to the field; and ethical, methodological and data transparency.

Possible recommendations: Publishable without changes; Publishable with minor changes; Publishable with major changes; Not publishable. In the event of substantial disagreement, a third external review may be requested.

Step 3. Editorial Decision

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board. Indicative timeframe: up to 2 weeks from receipt of at least two review reports. The decision may be to publish, reject or request additional revisions. When the decision differs from the reviewers' recommendations, it must be justified. Editors with a conflict of interest must refrain from participating.

Step 4. Revisions by Authors

Minor changes: up to 1 week. Major changes: up to 2 weeks. Authors must submit a revised version and a reasoned response to the comments.

Step 5. Layout, Approval and Publication

Responsible: authors, publication coordination and design. General indicative timeframe: up to 20 days for layout and technical review. The final version will include the DOI, license, editorial metadata, article history and other corresponding identifiers.

Step 6. Post-Publication Oversight

After publication, the journal maintains separate mechanisms for scholarly discussion of published articles and for correction of the scholarly record. Academic observations, comments or criticisms will be handled in accordance with the Post-Publication Academic Discussion Policy. Errors or problems that may require an erratum, correction, expression of concern or retraction will be handled in accordance with the Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions Policy and COPE guidance.

The timeframes indicated are indicative and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity and review requirements. The journal will inform authors in a timely manner when significant delays occur.