Peer Review

Peer Review

The manuscripts sent to Revista Religación are submitted to the double-blind peer review procedure.

The editorial team of the Revista Religación is committed to the scientific community to guarantee the ethics and quality of the published articles. The publication takes as a reference the Code of Conduct and Good Practices that the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE) defines for editors of scientific journals.

In compliance with these good practices, the articles are evaluated by anonymous external peers with criteria based exclusively on the scientific relevance, originality, clarity, and relevance of the texts presented by their authors. The confidentiality of the evaluation process and the anonymity of the evaluators and the authors, the content evaluated, the reasoned report issued by the evaluators, and any other communication issued by the Editorial and Arbitration Council are guaranteed at all times.

Likewise, confidentiality will be maintained in the event of possible complaints, claims, or clarifications that the authors wish to make to the editorial team or to the anonymous reviewers.

The Editorial Board of Religación has the following fundamental objectives:

- Compliance with publication standards.

- The affinity of the papers received regarding the issue of the Journal.

- Sending each work to two expert and external evaluators, through the blind peer system, with an evaluation protocol to which they must adhere, and which includes, among other aspects, good language management and speech coherence, methodological consistency, clarity in writing, and an updated bibliography.

The Revista Religación will reject any work that is not original, or that has been published previously, promising not to accept those works suspected of plagiarism. By accepting the terms and conditions expressed, the authors must guarantee that the articles and the materials associated with them are original and do not infringe on the copyright.

The intellectual property of the published material belongs to Revista Religación, the authors must request permission for its dissemination in any other medium and are obliged to refer to the Journal.

Duration of the process

The approximate waiting time for the review ranges from 1 to 2 months for the reception of the reviews. The accepted articles are published in the following number. The authors will have fulfilled all this process.

Revisors

Nombres

Apellidos

E-mail

Institución a la que pertenece

Fernando

Lizárraga

falizarraga@yahoo.com.ar

IPEHCS/CONICET-UNCo

Carlos Anibal

Peris Castiglioni

carlosperisc@gmail.com

Universidad Naciónal de Asuncion

Mauro

Pérez Bravo

mauro050@yahoo.com.mx

Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos

Alexander

Luna Nieto

alexlunanieto@gmail.com

FUNDACIÓN UNIVERSITARIA DE POPAYÁN

Jorge Gilberto

Bonilla Macas

jmacas2003@yahoo.com

Universidad Católica de Cuenca

Javier Alejandro

Avila Larrea

javier.avila@ucuenca.edu.ec

Universidad de Cuenca

Karina Andrea

Muñoz Vilugron

karina.munoz@uach.cl

Universidad Austral de Chile

Mario Federico David

Cabrera

Federicodavidcabrera@gmail.com

Universidad Nacional de San Juan

Ruth

Felder

ruth.felder01@gmail.com

University at Albany, State University of New York

María Aránzazu

Serantes

searamovil@gmail.com

UMinho / USC

laura

ortega

lortega@mendoza-conicet.gov

Incihusa CONICET y Uncuyo

Héctor

García Cornejo

hectorgc@ulm.edu.mx

Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas-Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo

Andrea

Cantarelli

acantarelli@ffyl.uncu.edu.ar

Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo

Claudia Lorena

Burbano García

lorenabg871017@hotmail.com

Fundación Universitaria de Popayán

Amgélica Paola

Alvites Baiadera

angelalvites@yahoo.com.ar

Universidad Nacional de Villa María, Córdoba, Argentina

María Dolores

Sancho

dolos_83@hotmail.com

Universidad Nacional del Comahue

Jesús María

Jaramillo

jesusnqn@gmail.com

IPEHCS-CONICET-UNCo

julieta

sartino

sartino84@hotmail.com

Instituto Patagónico de Estudios de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Universidad Nacional de Río Negro

Marina

Anderson

msandersonp@gmail.com

IPEHCS - CONICET - UNCO

Alejandro

Mejía Tarazona

ramejiafl@flacso.edu.ec

Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO - Ecuador)

Emilia

Alfieri

emialfieri@yahoo.com.ar

Grupo de Estudios Delito y Sociedad GEDyS. Centro de Estudios Históricos de Estado, Política y Cultura CEHEPyC / CLACSO. Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales / Universidad Nacional del Comahue

Danny Michael

Ramírez Palacios

dramirezpalacios791@gmail.com

Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales

Suyai

Quiros Benedetto

suquiros@hotmail

Universidad Nacional de Cuyo

Francisco Javier

Jover Martí

Fcojavier.jover@uclm.es

Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha

Jose María

Barroso Tristán

jmbarroso84@gmail.com

Universidad de Sevilla - Universidade Federal da Bahia

Sergio

Monroy Isaza

seamonroyfl@gmail.com

FLACSO Ecuador

Diego

Donoso Vargas

didonoso@ucm.es

Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Roberto

Rodríguez Andrés

rrodrigueza@comillas.edu

Universidad Pontificia Comillas ICAI-ICADE

Rodrigo Agustín

Navarrete Saavedra

rodrigo.navarrete@uach.cl

Instituto de Psicología de la Universidad Austral de Chile

Paola Andrea

Tovar

chiquitica1403@gmail.com

Fundación Universitaria de Popayán

Christian Andres

Quinteros Flores

cquinterosflores@gmail.com

Universidad Tecnológica de Chile

Francisco

Ramirez Varela

framirezv@udla.cl

UDLA

Mauricio

Sandoval Cordero

msandoval@flacso.or.cr

Universidad de Costa Rica y Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales - Sede Costa Rica

Mariana Noel

Guerra Pérez

mariananoelguerra@gmail.com

CONICET-UNSJ-UNC

Juan Manuel

Fernández Chico

jmfernandezchico@gmail.com

ITESM, Campus Ciudad Juárez

Mauricio

Chamorro Rosero

alvchamo@ucm.es

Grupo de Investigación La Minga, UCC

Karin Andrea

Sanchez Manríquez

ksanchez@ucsh.cl

Universidad Católica Silva Henríquez

Noelia Marina

Cortinas

noelia.cortinas@hotmail.com

Facultad de Derecho, universidad de Buenos Aires

Mitchell Alberto

Alarcón Diaz

uapalarcon@hotmail.com

Universidad Nacional de Educación - Universidad César Vallejo

Rosa María Celeste

De Marco

celestedemarco88@gmail.com

CONICET/ Centro de Estudios de la Argentina Rural, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes (Argentina)

Carla Vanessa

Zapata Toapanta

czapata@usal.es

Universidad de Salamanca

Daniel

Orizaga Doguim

daniel.orizaga.doguim@gmail.com

Centro de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias - UAQ

Samuel

Silveira Martins

samuelsamaz@gmail.com

UNVMC

Pedro

Lebrón Ortiz

plebron.upr@gmail.com

Universidad de Puerto Rico

Tomás Sebastián

Torres López

tom.torres.lopez@gmail.com

Universidad Católica Silva Henríquez

Jose alexander

Rubiano pedroza

Rubiano999@hotmail.com

Universidad de pamplona

Marina

Acosta

Macosta@sociales.uba.ar

Universidad de Buenos Aires

Silvia

Demirdjian

silviademir@sociales.uba.ar

Universidad de Buenos Aires

Rosalvina

Otálora Cortés

Economiayconflicto@gmail.com

Universidad Libre

Bertha Leticia

Rivera Varela

bach327@gmail.com

Universidad Abierta y a Distancia de México

Gamaniel David

Suárez Cobix

gdcobix@gmail.com

Universidad Veracruzana

MIRNA YAZMIN

ESTRELLA VEGA

mirebeldyaz@yahoo.com.mx

Docente-tutor-invetigador del Instituto de Educación Media Superior de la Ciudad de México y UNAM

Gloria Concepción

Tenorio Sepúlveda

gloria_cts@yahoo.com.mx

Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Chalco

FABRICIO

ESPINOSA ORTIZ

fabespi@gmail.com

CONACYT CENTROMET

Olivia

Marin Alvarez

oliviamarin89@yahoo.com

Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Unidad Xochimilco

João Luis

Binde

joaobinde@gmail.com

Instituto Federal do Mato Grosso

Ana Laura

Elbirt

analaura1605@gmail.com

Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales/Universidad Nacional de Jujuy; Facultad de Humanidades/Universidad Nacional de Salta; UE CISOR CONICET/UNJu

Mariana

Lerchundi

mari_lerchundi@hotmail.com

CONICET-UNRC

Carla

Vidussi

Carla.vidussi@hotmail.it

UNAM

Edgar

Martínez Castillo

m.edgar12@yahoo.com.mx

UNAM

Bruno

Puccinelli

puccinelli.br@gmail.com

Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Unicamp


FORMAT REVIEW

RESEARCH ARTICLES

About the objective of peer review.

Remember, peer-review is intended to determine whether the manuscript in question is appropriate for publication. This is based on factors such as the scientific quality and relevance of the writing, as well as the clarity of writing among others, which helps to improve the quality of research and presentation of proposals before being published.

Therefore, the main objective of the article is to improve the quality of the assigned article. For this, we ask you to make constructive suggestions and criticisms, with respect to the work done by the author.

About the evaluation rubric.

For the evaluation of the article, you will be provided with a form on the web page, but you can also make more specific annotations and comments in the Microsoft Word file of the article.

- A form with specific items will be displayed, please read carefully and respond in each box. Remember that the form will be read by the editor and also by the author.

- If you make annotations to the file, at the end of submitting the review form, a section will appear to upload files, please upload it there. Before uploading remember to delete its file name to keep the revision double-blind.

Suggestions.

-Initially perform a quick reading of the article to get a general idea of the article.

-Check the components of the formulary so that you know which areas are important to the journal and to pay more attention to them when performing the evaluation.

-Make a second reading and write the comments and suggestions you think are necessary.

-If you have any questions, please contact the editor who assigned you the article.

 

 

REVIEW FORM

  1. ARTICLE TITLE

Does the title say precisely what the study is about?

Does it have a maximum of 20 words?

Do not use acronyms.

You can also give suggestions or alternative titles.

  1. ABSTRACT

The article presents an ABSTRACT with a clear structure:

The author must not provide information or a conclusion that is not present in the text, nor should he cite bibliographical references.

The author must make clear the problem under investigation, the main objectives, and scope of the research, describe the methodology used, summarize the results, and generalize the main conclusions.

 

  1. KEYWORDS

Will keywords help readers find the article?

Are they specific and represent the content of the manuscript?

Are they separated by semicolons (;)?

 

  1. INTRODUCTION

Are the following elements present?

Importance of the topic

Conceptual or historical background of the topic

Definition of the problem.

Objectives of the Article

Must contain a clear and simple approach to the problem, the previous references to address it, the possible questions and assumptions that guided the work, the objective and approach that the author used.

  1. METHODOLOGY

The evaluation of this section varies greatly depending on the type of article, especially in Humanities. The objective of this section in general terms should expose a clear methodology that the author used for the elaboration of his research or an academic proposal.

However, in some cases, you can apply the following instructions.

The methods section should give enough readers information so that they can undertake an investigation or understand how their investigation was developed. (Always according to the type of article)

It should be clear from the Methods section how all of the data in the Results section were obtained.

The study system should be clearly described. For example, researchers need to specify the number of study subjects; how, when, and where the subjects were recruited.

In most cases, the experiments should include appropriate controls or comparators.

The outcomes of the study should be defined.

The methods used to analyze the data must be statistically sound.

For qualitative studies and established qualitative research methods (e.g. grounded theory is often used in sociology) must be used as appropriate for the study question.

If the authors used a technique from a published study, they should include a citation and a summary of the procedure in the text.

All materials and instruments should be identified, including the supplier’s name and location. For example, “Tests were conducted with a Vulcanizer 2.0 (XYZ Instruments, Mumbai, India).”

The Methods section should not have information that belongs in another section (such as the Introduction or Results).

  1. RESULTS

Depending on the article, you can be guided by some of the following instructions:

- There is a clear division of the different moments proposed in the text

- The wording is clear, and the information is presented in an organized and chronological way

- The ideas that the author wants to expose are clearly understood.

- The ideas and proposals are well-founded.

- The sources used by the author are sufficient (current, relevant, from prominent authors) or the author must add more information and authors.

- The author uses only specific information, not getting bogged down in ideas that are not relevant to the objective of the article.

- The author makes unnecessary quotes and redundant, obvious explanations. (Please indicate which ones)

- Use the quotes correctly.

- If the author uses tables and graphs. Place the title above and the source below.

 

  1. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Depending on the type of article, some authors will skip this section, the Discussion.  In some cases, the author may be suggested including this section and ending with the conclusion.

Some suggestions for this final section:

  • Does the discussion fit with the aims of the study stated in the Introduction?
  • Have the authors adequately compared their findings with the findings of other studies?
  • Does previous research on this topic support or refute the findings? Do the authors discuss these other studies?
  • Do the authors mention how the study’s results might influence future research?
  • Are the limitations of the study noted? If not, what limitations have you found? Are the authors’ conclusions supported by their data? Have the authors overstated the importance of their findings? Are the conclusions supported by the data?
  • Are important discussion points missing?
  • Do the authors suggest future research on this topic?
  • Do the authors discuss assumptions, limitations, and sources of bias?
  • Have the authors overlooked critical references and/or only selected a biased range of papers?

 

  1. ABOUT THE ARTICLE

Select according to your criteria

  • The article opens space for the development of new research
  • The academic contribution is innovative and unprecedented.
  • The article contributes to new disciplinary knowledge
  • Is the theme of the article a significant contribution to the discipline, therefore, be well received and have an impact on the community?

 

  1. Comments and suggestions to the author

You can write suggestions or comments to the author to improve your research method, or you can also congratulate the author for certain affirmative actions in your text.