Review methods

The peer review process is double blind until the publication of papers. Submissions will be checked by the Editor in Chief. If the Author Guidelines are not observed or major problems are noticed, the article will be immediately rejected and authors informed on the reasons. Articles that passed successfully this stage are reviewed by two members of the Editorial Board, receiving a copy that does not contain the name and affiliation of authors or other identifying information. If reviewers find or suspect the identity of authors, they must act regardless of the ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious beliefs or political orientation of the authors, or report to the Editor any potential conflict. If there are minor differences, the decision is taken by the Editor in Chief based on the importance of the submission, assessed in accordance with the Editorial Policy. If their opinions differ substantially, a third reviewer will be contacted. If the reviewers require revisions, authors must submit, in addition to the revised manuscript, an anonymous letter stating the changes performed or motivating the refusal to address them. In the next round, reviewers will be asked to assess whether their suggestions were properly addressed. Rejected submissions will not be returned to authors, but the authors will be informed on the editorial decision. For accepted papers included in an issue, reviewers are acknowledged collectively using their first initials and last names, except for those specifically stating that their names should not be disclosed. After acceptance, articles are checked for plagiarism using a specialiyed program.