Once the editorial review is cleared, contributions must successfully pass the academic peer review process, which operates under a double-blind peer review modality, where the identity of both the authors and the reviewers remains anonymous:

• Contributions that pass the editorial review will be sent for review to scholars who are experts in the same disciplinary and thematic area as the submitted text.

• Reviewers will be selected from the pool of referees consisting of specialists from national and international institutions. They will issue comments on the relevance and quality of the proposed text and determine the feasibility of publishing the text in question.

• Reviewers are responsible for reviewing and analyzing the medical, theoretical, and methodological relevance of each text assigned to them. They are responsible for verifying the explicit presence of the theoretical-methodological section, as well as its consistency with the field of study, the coherence between the academic contribution and the relevance of the described findings, and the currency and relevance of the bibliography used.

• All texts will be submitted to two experts—affiliated with an institution different from the authors' affiliation—who will issue their comments. Finally, based on the reviewers' recommendations, the editor's decision will be:

  • Recommend publication without modifications.

  • Recommend publication with minor changes that do not necessitate a second review by the referees.

  • Condition publication on the implementation of major changes, which requires a new evaluation by the reviewers. This process may be repeated for a maximum of three rounds; if at this point the document is still not recommended for publication, the article will be rejected without the option for resubmission.

  • Do not recommend publication.

• In case of controversy in the reviews, the intervention of a third reviewer will be requested.

• For a text to be approved for publication, it is essential that at least two of the three reviews are positive.

• The editorial management will ensure, in all cases, that the reviews provided to the authors contain solid arguments that support the editorial decision.

• The results of the academic peer review process shall be unappealable in all cases.

• In the event of receiving observations, the author will have a period of four weeks to submit the new version of the work to the editor.

• The time it takes for a document to be submitted for review depends on the number of articles on the waiting list.

• Once the article is received, the referees have six weeks to conduct the review and submit the result.

• Accepted documents will begin the editing process (copy-editing, metadata tagging, formatting, layout, etc.) and will subsequently be included in the corresponding issue, according to the editorial team's decision.

• Once the editorial process is concluded, the preliminary version of the text will be sent to the authors for their final review and approval. Authors will have a period of three calendar days to provide their final approval (visto bueno). If comments are not submitted within said period, the journal's editorial team will assume that the authors have given their tacit approval.