Review

Editorial review

The authors who submit a text for possible publication in Revista de Enfermería Neurológica must send —in their full and final version— the documents indicated in requirements for manuscript submission. Once the editorial team verifies that the submission meets all the requirements, the text will be sent to editorial review, which is composed of the following stages:

  1. Accredit a review using the tool approved by the Editorial Committee for plagiarism detection, only after this will it be possible to go on to the following stages of editorial review.
  2. It will be verified that the text keeps relation with the journal’s focus and scope.
  3. It will be checked that the text meets each and every indication as stated in requirements for original submission and Manuscript submission, as well as Guidelines for authors.
  4. It will be revised if the bibliography included is relevant and updated and provided duly standardized according to the Vancouver
  5. In accordance with the editorial policy guidelines approved by the Editorial Committee, priority will be given to texts whose bibliography is delivered electronically managed and with active DOI hyperlinks, when applicable.

 

Once the submitted contribution accredits Editorial review, the corresponding author will be notified about the registration and beginning of the Academic review process.

Academic review

The contributions must positively accredit the process of academic review which will operate under the modality of double-blind peer review, in which the identity of both reviewers and authors will be anonymous:

  1. Articles that accredit Editorial review will be sent to academics expert in the same disciplinary and thematic area as the submitted text. Reviewers will be selected from a panel of referees ­­—which comprises specialists from national and international institutions— who will comment of the quality and relevance of the submitted text and will rule on the feasibility of publishing the text in question.
  2. The reviewers will be responsible for revising and analyzing the medical, theoretical and methodological relevance of each and every text they are assigned. They will be responsible for verifying the explicit presence of a theoretical-methodological section, as well as its congruence regarding the field of studies, coherence between academic output and the relevance of the described findings, as well as the up-to-dateness and relevance of the bibliography reported.
  3. All the texts will be sent to two experts —ascribed to an institution other than the authors’— and will produce a ruling. Finally, on the basis of the reviewers’ recommendations, the decision of the editor will be: a) Recommend its publication without modifications. b) Recommend its publication with minor changes, which do not make a second review by the referees necessary. c) Condition its publication to make major changes, which makes it necessary a new revision by the referees. This process may be repeated up to three rounds, if up to this point the document has not been recommended for publication, it will be rejected with no option to resend it.  d) Do not recommend its publication.
  4. In case of controversy between the rulings, a third referee will be asked to review the text.
  5. For a text to be approved for publication it is indispensable that, at least, two of the three rulings are positive.
  6. The editorial board will ensure, in all cases, that the reviews delivered to the authors include solid arguments that support the editorial decision.
  7. The results of the academic review process will be unappealable in all cases.
  8. In case of receiving observations, the authors will have a four-week deadline to send the editor the new version of the work.
  9. The time for the document to be sent to review will be in function of the number of articles in waiting list. The referees, upon receiving the document, will have six weeks to make the review and deliver the result.
  10. The accepted documents will begin the edition process (proofreading, metadata marking, layout and page composition) to later be included in the corresponding fascicle according to the decision of the editorial board.
  11. Once the editorial process concludes, the preliminary version of the text will be sent to the authors for their last revision and approval. They will have a 3-natural-day deadline to deliver their approval, should they fail to comment within this time, the journal’s editorial coordination will assume the authors have tacitly approved.