Guidelines for reviewers

Criteria for accepting / rejecting manuscripts for review

The editors of «Revista de Pensamiento Estratégico y Seguridad CISDE» always select the reviewer they consider the best qualified to review the manuscript. The journal requires the reviewers to collaborate in writing reports and providing answers for the authors who have submitted manuscripts; the invitation to review for the journal will be based on:

a) Knowledge of and academic experience in the subject of the manuscript. Invitation to a reviewer necessarily means he / she has a firm grasp of the subject of the article.

b) Availability. Reviewing an article requires dedicating time and careful thought to evaluating.

c) Conflict of interest. The scientific community is small. In the case when a potential reviewer can identify the author of the manuscript, or there is academic proximity or a family connection with the authors, if the reviewer belongs to the same university, department, research group, professional network, research project as the author or has published articles with the author, …or any type of connection or conflict/professional proximity, the reviewer must decline the offer from the editor to review the article. A conflict of interest can occur as a result of proximity or hostility to the authors if the reviewer identifies the authors even though their names have been removed from the manuscript. The authors can inform the journal via the platform to say which researchers might have a conflict of interest with their submission; reviewers must do likewise.

d) A commitment to confidentiality. The reviewer must maintain strict confidentiality when assessing a manuscript and must not divulge its content to third parties. These evaluations and recommendations will help the editors make a final decision on the manuscript.

If the reviewer is unable to proceed with the review for any of these or other reasons, he / she must notify the editor via the RECYT platform (the same channel through which the invitation was made), specifying the reasons for declining to review the manuscript.


General criteria for the review of manuscripts

a) Subject
The central theme of the article must be relevant and of scientific value and of broader interest to the international scientific community.

b) Style
The reviewer’s report of the critical evaluation of the manuscript must be written in an objective style using quotes directly from the text submitted or citing references of interest in order to support his / her argument.

c) Originality
The originality and suitability of the manuscript is an important factor in deciding whether to select a text for publication.

d) Structure
All manuscripts must be structured with a summary, introduction, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion.

• The title, summary and key words must describe the content of the article accurately.

• The review of the literature must summarize the current state of the question under investigation by placing the work within the international context, and explain which conclusions drawn by other authors, if appropriate, are being questioned or extended. The review must include a general explanation of the study, its main aim and the methodological design followed.

• In research articles, the author must state in the method description and analysis how data were compiled and the process and instruments used to test the hypotheses as well, in other words, all the information necessary so that any other researcher can replicate the study.

• The results section must clearly state the findings, which are to be presented in logical sequence. It will be necessary to determine whether the corresponding type of analysis used, be it quantitative, qualitative or a combination of both, contains any errors.

• Discussion: this section contains the interpretation of the data obtained from the review of the literature and the data gathering. The authors must state whether their article supports or contradicts previous theories. The conclusions will state the advances that the investigation proposes for its specific area of scientific knowledge.

• Language: if the article contains serious grammatical errors or is written in a complex, over‐elaborate style that makes the manuscript difficult to read (in English or Spanish), the reviewer should not attempt to correct the text. The reviewer must inform the editors about the grammatical errors and awkward language of the text; the editors will then return the manuscript to the authors for rewriting and resubmission to the journal, if appropriate.

• The reviewer must also decide if the figures and tables are necessary and relevant to the text, and check their accuracy.

• Finally, the reviewer must check the references thoroughly for omissions. The references cited must be accurate and relevant to the subject; they will include the main works on the subject and those documents that most clearly reflect the subject under study, as well as the latest research in the field.


Review criteria

Reviewers of «Revista de Pensamiento Estratégico y Seguridad CISDE» must carry out a thorough analysis of the manuscript, contrasting the information presented, checking the scientific literature used to support the document and present a quantitative and qualitative report to the editors on the suitability of the work for publication.

The reviewer’s report must be detailed and well‐reasoned, and the reviewer will score the manuscript based on a points system that the editors use to compare the value of all works reviewed.


Ethical issues

a) Plagiarism: If the reviewer suspects the author(s) have copied from another article, he / she must inform the editors and name the article and the parts of that document they believe the authors have reproduced. The systems for detecting plagiarism and selfplagiarism (crosscheck, turnitin, writecheck, copionic, plagium…) can be used prescriptively by the reviewers and editors.

b) Fraud: If the reviewer suspects the results presented in the article are false or fraudulent, the editors must be informed immediately.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.