Diagrama

Paper review process

Paper assessment flow chartRTS only publishes original unpublished papers and uses the double blind peer review procedure (the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors of the papers and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers). This ensures the review is objective and in keeping with the quality criteria applicable to scientific publications.

All papers processed shall be subject to an initial assessment by the Editorial Board in terms of its alignment with the standards of the journal, the editorial aims and scientific quality.

The external review process, involving a double blind peer review system, begins once the Editorial Board has proposed the respective reviewers to be appointed for each paper, according to their specialist field. Communication with said reviewers shall be conducted through the RTS technical support team and the former shall be given the journal’s review guidelines. The review should take into consideration: the originality of the text, the quality and rigour of the work, the opportunity and relevance for social work and social intervention, presentation and the wording of the text, and the suitability of the bibliography cited. All of these aspects are set out in the review guidelines that will be given to the reviewers, which are also published on the website to assure transparency. In each issue a list of the reviewers involved in its preparation will be published.

The reviewers shall uphold confidentiality with regard to the text and the review. They shall also declare any conflict of interest they may have in personal, academic, research-related or other terms which would disqualify them from reviewing a specific assigned paper.

The authors will be informed about the review process and they will be notified about the outcome of this decision. Moreover, the authors shall incorporate the changes suggested by the external reviewers within the period specified to them.

The duration of the paper review process shall be at least three months, provided no major changes are needed to the text; otherwise, the timeframe of the review process shall depend on the point at which the issue to be published is at in the editorial process, although it shall not exceed six months.

The paper review process shall incorporate the following stages:

1. Receipt of the paper at RTS

The authors shall submit their paper to the journal by registering and filling in the form on the journal website (www.revistarts.com/enviaments):

  • The checklist of items requested shall be completed on the web page.
  • The paper shall adhere to the RTS rules of submission.
  • RTS shall notify the authors that their paper has been received correctly and that the review process is underway.
  • The authors shall submit original anonymised papers.
  • It is advisable to avoid overuse of self-citations and, if these are used, they shall be sufficiently neutral as to allow the reading of the text during the blind review to not reveal their status as self-citations.

2. Verification of requirements

The technical support team shall verify that the paper meets all the requirements laid down in the rules of submission before forwarding the paper to the Editorial Board for its first assessment. In the event of any incident, it shall be necessary to consult with the management of RTS.

3. Initial assessment from the Editorial Board

a. Two members of the Editorial Board shall be selected (in a meeting or through a decision by the management) to offer an initial assessment.

  • The aim of this assessment is to ensure that the content of the paper is in keeping with the goals of the journal, scientific quality and interest for social work.
  • Plagiarism check.

b. The timeframe for carrying out this first assessment is 2 weeks.

c. The response following this first assessment shall be:

  • ACCEPTED: the members of the Editorial Board will make a proposal for external reviewers according to the specific nature or field and the technical support team shall be notified. A proposal will be made for 4 reviewers (two initial reviewers and two replacements).
  • NOT ACCEPTED: the members of the Editorial Board will make a proposal for a reply to the authors setting out the reasons behind the decision.
  • Disagreement: if a disagreement were to emerge among the members of the Editorial Board appointed, a third member will be needed to break the tie.

4. First external review via the double blind peer review system

a. The first version of the paper (ART 1) shall be sent to the external reviewers and a maximum timeframe of 3 weeks shall be proposed for it to be returned. The paper shall be anonymised.

b. The external reviewers shall inform the individual responsible from the RTS technical support team that the job has been accepted. If any of the external reviewers is unable to take on the review, the proposal for replacement reviewers shall be used.

c. If there is any disagreement in the review, one of the replacement reviewers proposed by the Editorial Board shall be called upon. A disagreement in the review shall occur when the outcomes of the two external reviews lead to either of the following combinations: publishable/not publishable or re-assessable/not publishable.

d. The potential responses in the review process shall be as follows:

  • PUBLISHABLE: the authors will be notified about the outcome of the review and whether any small changes are needed before going ahead with the publication process.
  • RE-ASSESSABLE: the authors will be notified about the outcome of the review and the review guidelines along with the recommendations put forward by the reviewers shall be enclosed.
  • NOT PUBLISHABLE: the authors will be notified that they have not received a successful review and, consequently, the review process will end.

e. Return to the authors:

  • The paper shall be handed back to the authors to be reviewed. If the review is minor in nature the timeframe for this shall be two weeks; if the review is substantial (affecting the whole paper) the maximum timeframe for this shall be three weeks.
  • The authors will be told about the type of review that needs to be conducted and the time they will be granted to do it.
  • The review guidelines shall always be given to the authors, unless a specific incident is identified; in which case, the Editorial Board will decide how to proceed.

5. Second external review via the double blind peer review system

a, The new version of the paper (ART 2) shall be handed to RTS.

b. The new version of the paper (ART 2) shall be passed on to the previously assigned external reviewers who shall respond within a maximum period of two weeks.

  • If one of the reviewers fails to respond or does not accept the task entrusted, the Editorial Board shall take on this function.

c. The outcome of this review shall be:

  • PUBLISHABLE: the authors will be notified and, if necessary, they will carry out a brief review for publication.
  • REASSESSMENT: the paper is returned to the authors with the necessary remarks and a maximum period of two weeks is granted to incorporate the changes suggested.
  • NOT PUBLISHABLE: the authors will be notified that they have not received a successful review and, consequently, the review process will end.

d. In the event of a disagreement in the response from the external reviewers, the Editorial Board shall make the final decision about whether the review and publication process will continue.

e. If the authors fail to meet the deadlines proposed, they will be informed that the paper will be put back to the next issue of RTS.

6. Third external review stage

a. Submission of the new version of the amended paper (ART 3) with the relevant changes.

b. Review of the final changes by the members of the Editorial Board originally assigned (two weeks).

c. The outcome of this review shall be:

  • PUBLISHABLE: the authors shall be notified.
  • NOT PUBLISHABLE: the authors shall be notified.

7. Acceptance of the paper

Once the paper has been accepted it will then undergo:

a. Proofreading.

b. Layout.

c. Once the paper has been laid out, a PDF copy will be sent to the authors to check that it is correct or see if any changes are needed. Corrections may only be made in relation to the galley layout of the original text. If no response is received within 72 hours, it will be assumed that the paper is ready for publication. It will not be possible to make any changes thereafter.

8. Publication on social media

The authors shall be asked to choose the foremost sentences from the paper so they can be published on social media. A video abstract of the paper of no longer than one minute may also be provided.

9. English translation

During the paper review process, the members of the Editorial Board shall consider the possibility that the paper may be translated into English. The final decision about which papers are likely to be translated shall be made jointly by the members of the Editorial Board taking into consideration the specific issue of RTS being published as a whole. The authors shall be notified about this decision.

10. Incidents

Any incident arising during the paper review process shall be solved by the Editorial Board.