Review process

1. The review process begins with the receipt of an email sent by a journal editor inviting you to evaluate a manuscript. The notification will ask you to access the journal's OJS platform to indicate whether you accept or decline the review. You will be able to see the essential details of the proposed manuscript (title and abstract) in order to make your decision.
   • To avoid delays in the assignment process, you will have a maximum period of 7 days in which to indicate whether you accept or decline the review. The system will send you a reminder email as the deadline approaches.
   • If you decide to accept the review, you must indicate whether or not you have any conflicts of interest.
2. Once you have accepted the review, you will have a maximum period of two weeks (15 days) to complete it. In your personal area within the journal platform, you will have access at all times to the history of this review.
3. The review is carried out by means of an online review form in which different aspects of the article's content, methodology and form are evaluated.
4. At the end of the article evaluation process, you must make a final recommendation on publication. With the submission of this recommendation, the process will be complete.
5. If you indicate that the article may be published but requires substantial modifications that need to be re-evaluated, you will be asked to carry out a second round of review so that you can check whether the comments you made in the first round have been taken into account by the authors.

Review form: elements and criteria

As a member of the External Review Board of ICONO 14, your evaluation of this manuscript is essential to ensuring the quality of the journal's publications. The review is carried out using a double-blind procedure, which guarantees the anonymity of all evaluations.

It is crucial that the evaluation be formative, providing sufficient and well-reasoned arguments about which aspects could be improved, or the reasons why the text should or should not be published.

In the event of a favourable evaluation with reservations or an unfavourable evaluation, deficiencies must be identified precisely to help authors both in improving the current submission and in preparing future manuscripts.

The review form is structured in six sections:

1. Title and Abstract. Assess whether the title, abstract and keywords accurately describe the content of the article. If not, identify the aspects that could be improved.
2. Relevance, originality and literature review. Assess the interest, relevance and timeliness of the research topic, considering international research trends and priority areas of interest. Evaluate its fit with the Thematic Section (TS) for which it is proposed. Assess the originality of the research and the value it contributes to existing knowledge. Evaluate the literature review that has been conducted — its breadth, depth, currency, and the appropriateness of the selection made to adequately contextualise the research. Where applicable, identify aspects that have not been sufficiently addressed or that could be improved.
3. Structure, organisation, argumentation and writing. Assess whether the manuscript follows the required structure (IMRYD or IMDC), whether the section organisation is coherent and whether the argumentation presents the information appropriately to the reader. Evaluate whether the writing is correct in the language in which the article is submitted for review, free of grammatical errors, and uses language that is rich yet clear, straightforward and precise.
4. Methodology. Assess the methodological rigour of the research, including details of the epistemological approach, the research design (object, objectives, research questions, hypotheses), and the research instruments used for both data collection and analysis. Evaluate the level of detail in describing the methodological aspects that enable the reader to understand concretely the procedure followed to obtain the results. The specific characteristics of quantitative, qualitative and theoretical research are taken into account.
5. Results, discussion and conclusions. Evaluate the results obtained, with a clear indication of the findings. Check that the discussion includes the interpretation of results in contrast with the reviewed scientific literature, the previous results of those studies and the data obtained in the research. Assess whether the conclusions are clear and precise, indicating the advancement they represent in the field of study.
6. Final publication recommendation. A publication recommendation is made, which may be: a) Favourable; b) Favourable with reservations (the text requires minor modifications); c) Favourable with reservations (the text requires substantial modifications); d) Unfavourable. Publication is not recommended. Additional comments or improvement suggestions beyond those indicated in each section are included where necessary. Specific pages or sections referred to are indicated where applicable.

ICONO 14 has different review forms depending on the type of manuscript being evaluated. Select the corresponding form:

• General form (empirical studies, theoretical innovation and replication studies): View form
• Systematic literature review (SLR) form: View form
• Audiovisual research form: View form
• Interactive multimedia research form: View form