Editorial Policies

      1. Author identification

The following are principles and practices that prospective ES Review authors should adhere to:

Authorship. All parties who have made a substantive contribution to the manuscript should be listed as authors, whether they have worked in its conception or design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation, drafting or revising the work, or in all these areas, and provided that they have approved of the final version to be published in our journal.

Author attribution. Authors are encouraged to provide an Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCiD) number. This is aimed at offering transparency and disambiguating their identity from that of other researchers. Please note that providing and ORCiD identifier is mandatory for principal authors.

Multiple authorship. In multiple-authored works, the journal understands that the author list provided during the submission process is ranked in descending order of relative contribution to the content of those involved. The journal's OJS metadata framework provides the option to indicate whether there is more than one principal, first author and the roles that each author was responsible for; if requested, this information will be indicated in a footnote in the final, published version of the work.

Other contributors. All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an 'Acknowledgements' section, e.g. a person who provided purely technical help, or anyone having read the manuscript and suggested improvements. Any acknowledgements should appear at the end of the article, prior to the list of references.

      2. Peer Review process

In ES Review, all submissions are subjected to a strict two-step, double-blind, peer review process, which takes approximately four months.

2.1 Internal review. Once a submission is received, it is reviewed by the editors to ensure that it falls within the journal scope and meets the journal’s basic requirements and anti-plagiarism policies. A first editorial decision is taken to either desk reject the manuscript or send it to review.

2.2 External review. If the submission meets the required quality, content, and stylistic standards, it is then sent out for a blind peer review by at least two experts in the field concerned.

Referees protocol. Referees will be invited by email to assess a submission. The email will include an abstract of the article or title of the review sent to ES Review. If they accept, they will be asked to register and log in the journal’s official site to be able to access the journal's guidelines for reviewers, manuscript files and online assessment form. Evaluations will be due within six weeks.

Assessment criteria. Referees are asked to write their comments and recommendations, and rate the submission, using a scale from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong), according to these criteria:

  1. Suitability of the paper in relation to the range of topics of interest for this journal.
  2. Interest concerning subject matter, method, conclusions.
  3. Knowledge of previous scholarship with reference to the topic under discussion.
  4. Degree of originality and relevance concerning current research in the field.
  5. Scientific rigour and depth of analysis.
  6. Organisation of contents.
  7. Accuracy in the use of concepts, methods, and terms.
  8. Style and correct use of language.
  9. Use of updated bibliography.
  10. Relevance of the theoretical implications of the study for future research.

2.3 Final decision. The editors assess the submissions in light of the readers’ comments and recommendations and make a final decision (Accept, Revisions required, Resubmit for review, or Decline). The authors are notified of the reasoned decision and provided with a copy of the external referees’ comments.

      3. Publication ethics

The journal adheres to the Ediciones Universidad de Valladolid Good Practice Guidelines and the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers. These commit all parties involved in the publication of issues (editors, authors, reviewers) and may be summarised as follows:

  • Originality. The authors will guarantee that their contributions are original works that have not been previously published elsewhere. They will not submit their contributions to any other publication while they are under consideration by ES Review.
  • Ensuring a blind review. Every effort will be made to ensure the blind review process in order to prevent the identities of the authors and reviewers from being known to each other. This involves removing all text references to authors and all file properties of authors and reviewers.
  • Competing interests and confidentiality. The referees of ES Review are required to declare that they have no personal, academic, research, or financial conflicts regarding the reviewed article, and that they will maintain the confidentiality of both the article and the assessment.
  • Self-plagiarism. ES Review follows the COPE recommendations on self-plagiarism. If an author submits a manuscript similar to work already published or in the public domain, e.g. a chapter from a PhD dissertation, this must be disclosed in the time of submission, as there may be a question of breach of copyright. When the publication of the work is redundant, showing direct replication of whole sentences or paragraphs at an unacceptably high proportion, the paper will be rejected.

      4. Research ethics

  • Participant consent, confidentiality, and anonymity. Articles involving human research participants must protect their privacy while collecting, analysing, and reporting data. Manuscripts must include a statement affirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants; they must also describe the procedures used to ensure their confidentiality and anonymity.
  • Sex and gender, race, and minority groups. ES Review is committed to advancing research and learning in an inclusive, diverse, and equal environment present at every stage in the editorial process. The journal values engagement with difficult topics, but will reject contributions showing discriminatory animus toward gender, race, religious, or minority groups. It encourages authors to include sex and gender considerations where relevant and to make use of inclusive language.

      5. Retraction

In the case that any published work is found to have violated any of the ethics policies above at any stage of the editorial process, the editors will consider its retraction or removal. To minimise harm, a reasoned notice of retraction, with a link to the work in question, will be published as soon as possible.

      6. Funding

ES Review requires all authors to acknowledge the financial support received for their research. This must be done, not in their submitted manuscript, but as part of the OJS metadata during the online Submission process. If approved for publication, the information will be included in the final, published version under a separate heading entitled ‘Funding,’ placed prior to ‘References.’