Review process

EASI applies an editorial evaluation and double-blind peer review process. Every manuscript that successfully passes the initial editorial evaluation is assessed by at least two reviewers with expertise in the subject area of the manuscript, while preserving the anonymity of both authors and reviewers throughout the process.

Phase 1. Submission and Initial Editorial Evaluation

Manuscript submission: The corresponding author submits the manuscript through the EASI OJS platform and verifies compliance with the journal's requirements regarding format, structure, length, and editorial policies.

Initial editorial evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief or the editor responsible for the manuscript conducts a preliminary assessment to determine:

  • its alignment with the journal's scope and subject areas;
  • compliance with editorial and ethical requirements;
  • its originality and compliance with EASI's similarity policy;
  • the minimum scientific and formal quality required to proceed to peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be editorially rejected or returned to the authors for correction before entering the peer review process.

Phase 2. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial evaluation are assigned to at least two reviewers with expertise in the corresponding subject area.

Reviewer selection considers their academic and scientific experience, knowledge of the specific subject addressed by the manuscript, and the absence of conflicts of interest that could compromise the independence and impartiality of the evaluation.

Reviewers receive the corresponding invitation through the editorial system and, upon acceptance, are given the period established by the journal to complete their evaluation.

Phase 3. Peer Review

The evaluation is conducted under a double-blind peer review system, whereby the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors.

Reviewers conduct a critical evaluation of the manuscript, considering, among others, the following aspects:

  • Originality and contribution: the contribution of the work to knowledge in its field.
  • Scientific and methodological rigor: the appropriateness of the research design, methods, procedures, and analyses used.
  • Results and conclusions: consistency between the results obtained, their analysis, and the conclusions presented.
  • Relevance and pertinence: the significance of the work to the corresponding scientific and technological field.
  • Clarity and organization: coherence, structure, and quality of the manuscript's presentation.
  • Bibliographic references: relevance, sufficiency, and currency of the sources used.

Each reviewer submits a reasoned report containing comments and recommendations for the authors, as well as an editorial recommendation.

Phase 4. Editorial Decision

The editor responsible for the manuscript analyzes the reports submitted by the reviewers and makes the corresponding editorial decision based on the evaluations received.

The possible decisions are:

  • Accepted: the manuscript may proceed to the editing process.
  • Minor revisions: specific modifications are required before acceptance.
  • Major revisions: substantial modifications and further evaluation are required.
  • Rejected: the manuscript does not meet the requirements necessary to continue the editorial process.

When there are substantial discrepancies between the reviewers' recommendations, the editor may request an evaluation by an additional reviewer before making a decision.

The editorial decision and the corresponding review reports are communicated to the corresponding author through the OJS platform, while preserving reviewer anonymity.

Phase 5. Revisions, Re-evaluation, and Final Decision

When revisions are requested, the authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript accompanied by a detailed response to the reviewers' comments, indicating the changes made or providing justification for any recommendations that were not incorporated.

When necessary, particularly in cases involving major revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the reviewers to verify that the comments and recommendations have been adequately addressed.

Based on the revised manuscript and, where applicable, the reviewers' subsequent reports, the editor makes the final editorial decision.

Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to editing, copyediting, layout, and preparation for publication. Authors review the final proofs before the article is officially published.