Peer review policy

Misostenido conducts a rigorous peer review process using the “double-blind” method.

a manuscript proceeds to the review process, two or more external expert reviewers will be assigned to evaluate the article confidentially and anonymously.

They will use the online reviewer form assigned to them by the editor for each submission to prepare their report.

Review Deadlines

1. Initial Notification. Authors will receive an automatic system notification when they submit a manuscript for review, which will serve as confirmation of submission.

2. Start of the Evaluation Process. The journal undertakes to inform the authors, within a maximum of 30 days from submission, whether their work proceeds to the review phase or, failing that, if it is returned.

3. Review of the manuscript. The journal is committed to communicating the results of the evaluation of the authors’ articles to them within a maximum of 3 months (the month of August will not be counted).

General Review Criteria

Before an article proceeds to the review process, it is initially evaluated by the journal’s editorial team based on the following criteria:

  • Relevance to the journal’s subject matter and scope.
  • The proposal’s interest and timeliness.
  • Whether it offers valuable and significant contributions to the field.
  • Full and rigorous compliance with the journal’s publication guidelines in all respects.
  • Quality of presentation, terminology, clarity of exposition, and appropriateness of the title, abstract, and list of keywords.
  • Strict adherence to all ethical requirements for scientific publication endorsed by the journal Misostenido.

Reviewers

The journal Misostenido has a large pool of expert national and international reviewers.

Reviewers are assigned to an article based primarily on their expertise in the main subject matter of the article under review.

Authors may request the exclusion of specific reviewers in advance so that the editors do not consider them in the selection process. Such requests must be made in a letter attached to the submission.

The journal publishes an annual list of reviewers who participated in the previous year.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Competence: Reviewers must be specialists in the subject matter and topic of the article under review. They must decline to review texts for which they believe they lack the necessary skills or knowledge.

Reviewers' Responsibilities

  • Reviewers play a fundamental role in the process that ensures the quality of publications. Their work supports journal editorial teams and offers a guarantee of rigor and scientific soundness. Peer review is a procedure that helps editors make decisions about submitted articles and also allows authors to improve their contributions.
  • Reviewers commit to conducting an objective, informed, critical, honest, constructive, and unbiased review of both the scientific and literary quality of the manuscript. Acceptance or rejection will be based solely on the relevance of the work, its originality, its interest, and its adherence to the style and content guidelines outlined in the editorial criteria.
  • Reviewers will only review a manuscript if there are no conflicts of interest.
  • Reviewers agree to evaluate submissions in the shortest possible time to meet deadlines. If this is not possible, they must inform the journal's editorial office well in advance.
  • Each assigned manuscript must be treated as confidential. Therefore, reviewers will not share, disseminate, or use the information from the articles submitted for review without the appropriate permission from the editors and/or the authors.
  • Reviewers will submit a complete critical report with appropriate references according to the review protocol of Misostenido, Journal of Music, Education, and Therapy. They are required to inform the editors if substantial parts of the work have already been published or are under review for another publication.
  • Reviewers agree to accurately cite any fundamental works that the authors may have overlooked. They must also inform the editors of any similarities or overlaps between the manuscript and other published works.

Review Form: Elements and Criteria

It is essential that the evaluation be constructive, providing a clear, sufficient, and well-founded argument regarding aspects that could be improved, as well as the reasons justifying the recommendation for publication or rejection of the manuscript.

In the case of issuing a favorable with reservations or an unfavorable evaluation, the deficiencies detected must be specified precisely, with the aim of guiding the authors both in improving the submitted work and in the preparation of future manuscripts.

Here you can consult the Review Form

Review Certification

Misostenido, committed to providing the highest recognition to its reviewers, promotes scientific review accreditation. In the journal's OJS application, it is possible to download a review certificate as the final step in the process, once the reviewer submits the review.

It is very important that reviewers check their metadata on the platform in their user profile (name, surname, affiliation, etc.) before downloading the certificate to ensure it is generated correctly.