The reviewing procedure is a double-blind peer, as follows:
1. The original manuscripts submitted to the Journal are reviewed in the first place by the Editorial Board, which may reject them - in which case authors would be sent a reasoned report-, or deem them suitable for review.
2. The manuscripts that pass this first review are sent, without information regarding the authors, to a member of the Editorial Staff Committee selected on the basis of his/her expertise.
3. On the basis of the previous consultation, the Editorial Board sends the manuscript to two anonymous referees who judge the suitability of the paper for publication. After receiving the reports from the two referees, the Editorial Board takes a decision, and asks for further advise to the previously consulted member of the Editorial Staff Committee.
4. The Editorial Board will inform the authors of the final decision, always attaching the comments made by the referees and the report made by the spokesperson.
5. The manuscripts reviewed by the authors will be submitted directly to the Editorial Board, who will once again set the review process in motion with the same spokesperson and reviewers.
6. The Editorial Board will inform authors their manuscript has been rejected, filing the dossier of the manuscript, if: (a) the spokesperson still recommends “accepting the manuscript with significant modifications” after the second review; (b) six months after being notified of the conditioned acceptance of the manuscript for publication, the authors have not sent the revised version of their manuscript or have not sent the Editorial Board a request for an extension of this period; (c) the Editorial Board considers that, in view of the reports by the spokesperson and referees, the manuscript is not suitable for publication.
7. In order to ensure the scientific quality of research results, authors must provide the data and program codes used for estimations or calculations upon request throughout the reviewing process, so that the results obtained can be replicated. If the authors are unable to supply this information, they should give reasons why this is not possible.
