Proceso editorial
Development-Oriented Model of Editorial Management: Workflow and Policies
Unlike traditional editorial models based on punitive exclusion, Revista Espacios is governed by a philosophy that fosters and develops regional scientific production. We do not practice blind, immediate rejection upon encountering initial formatting flaws or basic structural omissions. Out of our duty to the research community, we protect their effort and investment through a technical and scientific audit system structured into two independent phases, designed to mitigate premature rejection rates and strictly ensure compliance with international indexing standards.
Our management is funded through a single Article Processing Charge (APC) of $150.00 USD per submitted article, which constitutes an indispensable requirement when introducing the manuscript into the platform.
1. PHASE 1: Pre-evaluation and Autonomous Technical Audit (Maximum 2 Reviews)
This initial stage consists of a rigorous regulatory, technological, and methodological screening. The editorial team conducts an exhaustive pre-evaluation based strictly on the public compliance checklists detailed on our website, which authors are required to review and apply prior to submission.
If the manuscript presents correctable compliance flaws or methodological omissions, it is not directly rejected. Instead, the author receives a technical feedback report detailing the deviations found against the public checklist, serving as a roadmap for researchers to independently perform the necessary corrections. The journal grants authors a maximum of two (2) preliminary review opportunities during this phase to satisfy the checklist requirements and reach the baseline structural level demanded by global quality indices. If the manuscript fails to pass the formal audit after this second attempt, it will be declared technically unfeasible, concluding the process and triggering our financial protection policy (refund).
Formal control during this initial stage is strictly governed by the following mandatory compliance instruments:
- Mandatory use of the official journal template.
- Maximum of 4 authors per manuscript.
- Valid, updated, and registered ORCID for all members.
- Maximum length of 15 pages (including figures and tables).
- Textual similarity below 30% verified through audit tools (Turnitin/iThenticate).
- Mandatory use of a reference manager configured strictly to APA 7th ed.
- Visual elements properly numbered, edited, and referenced in the text.
- Introduction with a clearly defined and substantiated problem statement.
- Explicit research objectives consistent with the study.
- Rigorous methodology (design, sample, techniques, and validation of instruments).
- Logically structured analytical results.
- In-depth discussion critically contrasted with current scientific literature.
- Conclusions aligned with objectives, stated contributions, and limitations.
- A minimum of 50% of the references used must be external to the institution of origin.
- Explicit statement of ethical commitments and regulation regarding Artificial Intelligence use.
- Mandatory use of the official journal template.
- Maximum of 3 authors per manuscript.
- Valid and registered ORCID for all members.
- Maximum length of 15 pages.
- Strict textual similarity below 20% verified through digital tools (Turnitin/iThenticate).
- Mandatory use of a reference manager configured to APA 7th ed.
- Visual elements edited in high quality with explicitly stated sources.
- Well-defined theoretical introduction and chronological-thematic scope.
- Single, analytical, and specialized review objective.
- Advanced search methodology documented in detail (recognized databases, explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, and search string syntax).
- Results grounded in a critical and evaluative synthesis (not purely descriptive).
- Discussion focused on the relevance, currency, and gaps of the findings.
- Conclusions oriented toward identifying gaps in the state of the art.
- A minimum of 70% of the references must be external to the affiliation university.
- Statement of ethical commitments and regulation regarding Artificial Intelligence use.
- • Preliminary Technical Approval: The manuscript optimally complies with the baseline methodology required by the public checklist, demonstrating the necessary readiness to formally enter the advanced scientific evaluation circuit.
- • Rejection due to Technical Unfeasibility: If, following the two permitted preliminary reviews, the manuscript continues to fail the checklist criteria, it will be definitively rejected. Under our fair financial protection policy, $130.00 USD will be refunded to the author, with the journal retaining only $20.00 USD to cover the dual technical audit and the executed computing operating expenses.
2. PHASE 2: Peer Review (Advanced Scientific Evaluation and Impact)
Once a manuscript has successfully validated its formal technical and methodological foundation in Phase 1, it is guaranteed to possess the structural baseline required by high-demand international indices. Upon entering Phase 2, the document is routed to the formal refereeing circuit managed by a committee of external expert peers.
At this stage, because the text already boasts a clean formal architecture, international reviewers do not expend effort looking for basic formatting errors to disqualify the article. Instead, they adopt an analytical approach centered on high scientific excellence: their verdicts and observations focus exclusively on deepening the theoretical discussion, validating the robustness of the findings, refining the scientific core of the manuscript, and maximizing its international visibility and impact post-publication.
- Review Method: Peer review system composed of external specialists with a proven track record, operating under a single-blind modality (reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know that of their reviewers).
- Phase Dynamics: The process of evaluation and incorporation of scientific improvements may be repeated consecutively up to a maximum of two times at the discretion of the referees. If uncorrectable substantive inconsistencies persist, the document will be denied.
- Response Times: The final editorial decision will be formally communicated within less than 6 weeks after the reviewers are assigned on the OJS platform.
Closure Guarantee and Non-Refundable Clause
If a manuscript is conclusively denied at this stage due to serious and uncorrectable substantive scientific inconsistencies detected by the evaluators, NO refund of any kind will be issued (0% refund). This is because the full APC will have already been earned and invested in technical external review fees, advanced typesetting, and the software licensing required for this advanced phase.
3. On Publication and Frequency
Philosophy: Democratization, Transparency, and Author Rotation. Our institutional policy rejects any type of academic endogamy and upholds the principles of scientific meritocracy, linguistic integration, and regional diversity among Latin American institutions.
Revista Espacios has a bimonthly frequency (6 issues per year), publishing a controlled volume of 20 to 24 articles per edition. To guarantee an equitable and transparent environment, the definitive indexing of approved texts is strictly governed by two concurrent criteria:
- Strict Chronological Order: Assignment to bimonthly issues through a transparent queue determined by the exact date of final and technical approval of the manuscript.
- International Diversity Quota (Author Rotation): In strict compliance with international indexing regulations to mitigate endogamy, a maximum appearance limit of three (3) articles per author per year is established. To ensure equitable author rotation, these manuscripts must be published in an indexed manner every two issues (a four-month frequency between articles).
The journal handles all internal technical processes for XML marking and structured meta-tagging required to ensure a presence in the highest international indexing standards and to optimize visibility in global academic search engines.
4. Article Withdrawal
Philosophy: Defense of Scientific Integrity.
The immediate and permanent withdrawal of a manuscript from our servers and indices will proceed only upon verified proof of serious breaches of scientific integrity (such as plagiarism, fraud, duplication, or undisclosed conflicts of interest).
- Operational Management: The central metadata assignment system will be notified immediately, marking the DOI identifier permanently and unalterably with the status of "WITHDRAWN" in the digital record of the work.
- Financial Sanction: In the event of proven malpractice and serious violations of scientific integrity, the $150.00 USD APC will not be refundable under any circumstances.
5. Ethical Standards and Legal Ownership
Philosophy: Open Science and Non-Commercial Access. We firmly believe in the democratization of free and accessible knowledge to enhance regional research development, while always protecting authors' intellectual property rights against unauthorized commercial exploitation by third parties.
All processed and approved manuscripts are governed and publicly distributed under the specific terms of the international Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license:
