Editorial Policies

      1. Authorship

All parties who have made a substantive contribution to the article should be listed as authors. In multiple-authored works, the journal understands that the author list provided is ranked in descending order of relative contribution to the content of those involved. When applicable, at submission stage, there will be the option to indicate whether there is more than one principal, first author and/or the roles that each author was responsible for. This will be indicated in a footnote in the final published version of the work.

      2. Acknowledgements

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'.

      3. Funding

ES Review requires all authors to acknowledge the financial support received for their research. They must provide the details (funding agency and grant number) not in their submitted manuscript, but as part of the metadata, on Step 3 of the Submission process (see 5.2.3 below). The funding agency should be written out in full, followed by the grant number: 'This work was supported by the [Funding agency], Grant No. [xxx]'. If approved for publication, this acknowledgement must be included in the author's/s' final version under a separate heading entitled ‘Funding’, placed at the end of the article (or directly after ‘Acknowledgements’) and prior to 'References'.

      4. Peer review policies

All articles are subjected to a strict two-step, double-blind, peer review process, which takes approximately four months.

Internal review: Once an article or book review is sent, it is reviewed by the General Editors to ensure that it meets the basic prerequisites specified in the call for papers and our minimum quality requirements (see Author Guidelines/Basic requirements).

External review: If an article meets our quality, content, and stylistic standards, it is then sent out for a blind peer review by two experts in the field concerned.

Assessment criteria: Referees are asked to rate the submission initially according to these criteria using a scale from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong).

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

Notification of the decision: The authors are notified of the decision (Revisions required, Accepted, or Rejected) and provided with a copy of the external referees’ comments.

Referees protocol: We provide our referees with certificates of collaboration and their names will appear on a table of acknowledgments in the corresponding issue, unless otherwise indicated. They are required to declare that they have no personal, academic, research, or financial conflicts regarding the paper, and that they will maintain the confidentiality of both the paper and the assessment. Evaluations are due within six weeks from the reception of the paper.

      5. Publication ethics

ES Review adheres to the Ediciones Universidad de Valladolid Good Practice Guidelines and the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.

  • The editors will keep all information about the contributions received confidential, whether or not the contribution is eventually published, and will not reveal information about the interactions with the authors and referees.
  • All the parties involved in the publication of ES Review issues (General Editors, Editorial Board, Managing Editor, Copy Editors, Authors and Referees) will be committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles, not tolerating practices of plagiarism and reporting copyright infringements.
  • The referees of ES Review will maintain confidentiality of the manuscripts submitted and will evaluate them following the objective criteria specified by the Journal and reporting to the General Editors any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper.
  • The authors of ES Review 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.

      6. Ensuring a blind review

To ensure the integrity of the blind peer-review for submission to this journal, every effort will be made to prevent the identities of the authors and reviewers from being known to each other. This involves the authors, editors, and reviewers (who upload documents as part of their review) checking to see if the necessary steps have been taken with regard to the text and the file properties, as explained in sections 2.4 and 4.4 of Submissions.

      7. Plagiarism

To preserve the copyrights of authors and publishers from violation, the journal uses Turnitin as a plagiarism detection tool. The service is provided by the Servicio de las Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones de la Universidad de Valladolid (STIC).