Peer review policies

The "Peer Review Policies" of Schola Viva journal are established to ensure the quality, originality, and rigor of the articles it publishes. In this regard, the degree of anonymity to be used by the journal is hereby defined.

Schola Viva selects double-blind review as the method used in social sciences and humanities. In this type of review, neither authors nor reviewers know each other, aiming for impartiality based on the content of the article itself rather than its author or authors.

The review of each manuscript is conducted by two reviewers per article. Reviewers must be experts in the subject matter, from an institution other than that of the author, and not members of the journal's editorial board. Reviewers must declare that there are no conflicts of interest of any kind with the authors.

If the reviewers' criteria are discrepant, it is the prerogative of the Editorial Committee to send the manuscript to a third reviewer or to make a decision accordingly.

For the review of a manuscript, the following steps will be taken:

- It is the editor's responsibility to conduct a preliminary review to verify whether the manuscript fits the journal's scope and guidelines. If not, the manuscript will be returned to its authors and will not proceed to external review.

The deadlines for review and for author corrections are strictly enforced. Reviewers will have between 30 to 45 days to submit their report, while authors will make corrections within a period not exceeding 30 days.

The process and contents of manuscripts are treated confidentially by reviewers, who may not discuss them or use them for their own benefit.

The Evaluation Criteria to achieve objectivity are as follows:

- Relevance of the topic and contribution to the field of knowledge
- Argumentative fluency (Solid foundation without contradictions)
- Methodological consistency (coherence between paradigms, approaches, and selected methods)
- Currency (bibliographic and critical dialogue with the scientific community)
- Clarity and precision (Accessible yet academic language, coherence and cohesion in the text)
- Citation standards (Compliance with APA 7th edition)
- Ethical aspects: Authentic text free from plagiarism or fraud.

Finally, the reviewer issues a recommendation. The categories are usually as follows:

- Accept and publish without modifications: The manuscript is publishable in its initial version.
- Publishable if minor modifications are addressed: Small changes are required (format, writing) that the editor can verify without the need for a new round of review.
- Publishable if major modifications are made: Changes are significant and require a new evaluation in a second round.
- Reject: The manuscript is not publishable. If a second round with insufficient major revisions occurs, it may also lead to rejection.

Ethical Conduct and Best Practices for Reviewers

The ethical conduct criteria for reviewers align with those of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The reviewer must:

- Conduct the review with the greatest possible objectivity and in a constructive manner; communication must be assertive.
- Accept the review only if knowledgeable in the subject matter.
- Be responsible according to the timelines assigned by the Editor for the delivery of the review report.
- Decline the invitation if any conflict of interest exists.
- Conduct the review with confidentiality as the cornerstone of their work.
- Inform the editor of possible plagiarism and self-plagiarism.