Submissions

Author Guidelines

Every manuscript received by Iztapalapa. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities will be evaluated by the Editorial Committee in order to verify its relevance and compliance with the established formal requirements. This collective body will reject those proposals that do not adhere to the general guidelines established by the Journal.

In this first stage, if in the opinion of the Editorial Committee the manuscript does not adhere to the general guidelines, the author will be notified. Otherwise, the manuscript will be sent to be evaluated to two arbitrators recognized as specialists in the subject, under the modality of double-blind arbitration. The arbitrators will be external to the institution of affiliation of the author. The latter will receive the rulings within a period of no more than six months.

In the case of having a positive and a negative ruling, a third party will be consulted.

If the manuscript is approved, it will be sent to the author, if applicable, to integrate the proposed corrections and observations, giving them a period of ten to thirty calendar days to send the final version. The author undertakes to acknowledge receipt of the ruling within 15 days.

The final version of the article should have the paragraphs in which the modifications have been introduced color-shaded. If, at the time of revision, the Editorial Committee does not identify the changes, the work will not be published. In addition, an annexed document (letter) must be submitted in which the changes made are indicated, pointing out the page, the previous text, and the new text.

When a manuscript is rejected, the author will be notified by e-mail.

When an author disagrees with the rules, they may appeal in writing to the Editorial Committee, presenting their arguments in a respectful manner. The decision of the Committee shall be final and unappealable.

Ruling Process

Iztapalapa. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities expresses its gratitude to the arbitrators for their availability and commitment to maintain the quality and vocation of our journal.

Ruling Process

• The Author sends the manuscript.
• The Editorial Committee conducts a pre-ruling of the manuscript.
• If the pre-ruling is favorable, the Editorial Committee draws up a list of possible arbitrators and requests are sent.
• The acceptance of the arbitrators is confirmed, the manuscript and two formats are sent to them—one for arbitration and the other for curricular data.
• The judging panel sends its evaluation.
• The Editorial Committee makes a decision and contacts the author.

Objective of Peer Review

The Journal maintains a double-blind review process. The main objective of the process is the selection of high-quality manuscripts for the journal. At the same time, the process should provide authors with feedback useful to their work. The key to the process lies in the independent rulings of two anonymous arbitrators.

The Recommendation of the Arbitrator to the Editorial Committee

Will be one of the following:

• Accept in its current state (YES)
• Accept (YES, with minor revisions) if a manuscript is clearly acceptable. Any minor comments that serve to improve the document will be made known to the author.
• Accept (YES, with necessary modifications) if a manuscript is acceptable, but it is essential that the author make imperative changes to the document from the detailed comments made by the Arbitrator.
• Reject (NO) if a manuscript is clearly unacceptable, the reasons shall be made explicit.

Comments for the author

Arbitrators will stick to the format, trying to state their observations and suggestions in a clear and concise way.

Key Criteria

The arbitrator shall consider the following criteria:

• 1. Relevance and originality. The manuscript must be an original contribution in its field of study, and/or relevant to a wide range of readers.
• 2. Quality. Are there inconsistencies or other problems in the document? Indicate which ones. If the document has errors or inconsistencies, do you consider it feasible for the author to deliver a corrected version within 10 to 30 days?
• 3. Persuasiveness: Does the document provide enough information to support the arguments presented? Does the document use methods and arguments adapted to the available data and the facts under discussion?
• 4. Clarity: Does the document lead efficiently to the main results or to the stated objective? Can its structure be changed to present the results and/or arguments more clearly? Are all sections of the document relevant and necessary according to the objective?

Double Peer Review

The Journal seeks to ensure that no arbitrator knows the identity of both the Author and the other arbitrator and vice versa. Sometimes, the identity of the author may be obvious (for example, when a preliminary version of the manuscript has been presented at an academic or published meeting, or because of the subject matter). However, the arbitrator must make a fair and balanced evaluation of the manuscript. In none of the cases, under any circumstances will the identity of the Arbitrators be revealed to third parties or to the Author.

1. Integrity of the Peer Review Process. Iztapalapa. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities takes the peer review process very seriously. Arbitrators should treat manuscripts and data, along with any other information contained in the manuscript, in a strictly confidential manner, and not share it with third parties. If there is any conflict of interest, the Arbitrator should let the Editorial Committee know.

2. Deadlines. Iztapalapa. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities seeks to have quick, but careful rulings on the manuscripts submitted to judgement. In order to achieve this, Arbitrators are requested to send their rulings within a maximum of 6 weeks from the day they receive the manuscript, unless a different agreement has been established with the Editorial Committee.