Peer evaluation

The articles sent to the journal Dictamen Libre undergo an internal evaluation process by the Editorial Committee to define, in accordance with the subject of the article and the scope of the journal, whether to initiate the peer review process.

Editorial Committee Evaluation

At this stage, a preliminary review is made of the structure of the article, contents, use of bibliographic references, referencing of tables and figures, writing and especially that it has not been published in other media.

Average response time for this stage: 2 weeks.

Academic Peer Assessment

The articles accepted by the editorial committee are sent for evaluation by two peers external to the publishing institution, whose condition is to have published, in indexed journals, articles related to the one they will evaluate, and to have at least the same academic level as the highest one. degree of the authors. The reviewers do not know the names of the authors and vice versa (double-blind review). In the event that the concepts are contradictory, the Editorial Committee will assign a third evaluator.

Average time for this stage and response to the authors about the status of the article: 3 months.

Once the evaluations have been received, a definitive concept is consolidated that will be issued to the authors so that the appropriate actions can be taken (academic peer evaluation format).

When the new version of the article is received (if the observations require it), the editorial committee will verify the inclusion of the comments of the peer reviewers. This is due to the fact that only those articles with concepts Accept Shipping or Revisions Needed will be considered as accepted.

Only at the end of this stage can a letter of acceptance of the article be issued from Free Opinion.

Forward-for-review articles can start the evaluation process again if the author uploads a substantially modified version.

Ethics note: In accordance with the policies for the publication of articles in Free Opinion, it will be considered unethical for the authors to submit articles that have been previously published for evaluation, which lack the criteria of adequate citation and referencing, or that they are subjected to evaluation simultaneously in different publications. Furthermore, taking into account that the evaluation process is double blind, any attempt to contact the evaluators with the intention of coercing the result of the evaluation will be considered an unethical action.