1. The editorial management of Encrucijada Americana establishes that all work submitted for publication as a research or review article must be submitted to evaluation by two fully recognized "blind" readers and specialists in the thematic field in which it is insert the manuscript. In the event of a clear discrepancy between the reviewers, the Editorial Committee will seek a third opinion. However, the final decision on publication will always remain in the hands of at least one of the co-directors or those they designate for this purpose.

 

2. Encrucijada considers the work of evaluator of the utmost importance in the process of scientific communication. It is not only useful for publication purposes, but especially for the task of our own academic community and researchers, since conducting and receiving well-done and well-commented evaluations are a first-rate input for continuous improvement. scientific work and dissemination of results. Not in vain in this task the beneficial circularity that we have to star in is verified by being, at the same time, producers and validators of so-called scientific knowledge.

 

3. This guideline has two parts. First, there are the five criteria that the evaluator must complete after reading the article proposal. Before each comment, the evaluator must capitalize the initials corresponding to: LA: Widely Achieved; ML: Moderately Achieved; EL: Little Achieved; NL: Not Achieved. After that, you must state the reasons that justify your decision.
    

In the second part, a verdict is requested based on four options. Of these, the evaluator must choose only one of them, adding other considerations in addition to those already expressed in the first part. The options are:

 

1. It is approved without qualms: It is estimated that the article fully complies with all formal and content requirements.
2. It is approved with objections: The article is considered to meet the basic requirements for publication, however, minor changes or improvements are suggested.
3. It is disapproved with option: It is concluded that the proposal cannot be published as it is presented; however, due to its value or attractiveness, it is given the possibility of resubmission based on proposed changes.
4. It is rejected: the article does not have the relevance or the possibility of continuing in the editing process.

    

Finally, remember: whenever possible, provide any additional information that helps this journal decide on the publication of an article, as well as suggestions so that the authors can correct any weaknesses and improve their work. For example, and in polite terms, suggest bibliography; give examples of poor writing of the text (individualizing paragraphs and pages); indicate whether the article is overly technical or jargon; State if in your opinion the writing is unkind to the reader, etc.

 

1. PATTERN

 

Criterion	Comments
Content assessment: relevance and originality of the text

 

 

Criterion	Comments
Relevance and timeliness of the bibliography, resources and / or sources consulted

 

 

Criterion	Comments
Argument strategy: coherence between the problem, the demonstration and the conclusions or results achieved

 

 

Criterion	Comments
Thematic opening: the proposal suggests new questions and approaches

 

 

Criterion	Comments
Formal structure: clarity of the presentation and its writing.

 

 

1. Verdict: mark with an X and argue your option (once the alternative is chosen, you can delete the rest)

 

Approval without qualms:
Approval with objections:
Fail with option:
Rejection: