No.

MINIMUM MANUSCRIPT REQUIREMENTS

Yes

No

1

Theoretical or conceptual construction. Does the manuscript clearly formulate its problem, question, or objective?

2

Clarity of expression and argumentative coherence. Does the organization of the manuscript allow for a coherent and logical reading of its sections?

3

Clarity of expression and argumentative coherence. Does the writing allow the reader to follow the manuscript’s argumentative, expository, or analytical thread clearly?

4

Methodological consistency. Does the manuscript clearly state the method, work strategy, or procedure used?

5

Analysis, discussion, and conclusions. Do the discussion, analysis, or conclusions derive from the development of the manuscript and remain connected to its objectives or problem?

6

Ethical considerations. There are no evident ethical issues or improper uses of sources that would compromise the manuscript’s evaluability.

1. Academic contribution and originality. To what extent does the article present a clear, relevant, and recognizable academic contribution to the field?

Assigned score

The text identifies a specific tension or gap in the field and proposes a shift, such as a change in perspective or a disruptive finding, that goes beyond what is already available.

4

strong

The text explicitly identifies and names what it adds to existing knowledge, such as a new case, a finding, an application, or a useful methodological proposal.

3

adequate

The text describes already known information without critically organizing the field or proposing an interpretation that justifies renewed academic attention.

2

weak

The text is purely descriptive or reiterative; no addition or usefulness for the academic community can be identified.

1

insufficient

2. Theoretical construction. To what extent does the article clearly formulate the problem, use concepts with precision, and maintain conceptual coherence?

Assigned score

The concepts operate as precise analytical tools, avoiding the accumulation of unnecessary, circular, or redundant citations; the logic of knowledge, or epistemological position, guiding the study is explicitly stated and maintained with full coherence.

4

strong

The manuscript puts its concepts to work in relation to the problem, avoiding the accumulation of unnecessary, circular, or redundant citations; the position from which knowledge is produced is recognizable and supports the interpretive decisions made.

3

adequate

The use of categories is imprecise, or the logic of knowledge lacks clarity; concepts are mentioned but are not effectively integrated into the analysis.

2

weak

The manuscript lacks a conceptual framework and does not provide theoretical support for its object of study.

1

insufficient

3. Consistency of the procedure: method, strategy, or research path. To what extent does the article present a relevant, coherent, and sufficiently developed method?

Assigned score

The procedure, including the design and search strategy where applicable, is transparent and fully justified; it provides a thorough account of the sources and technical steps that validate the work.

4

strong

The path followed is appropriate to the problem. In review articles, the search criteria are defined, and the argumentative trajectory is clear and sustainable.

3

adequate

The procedure is generic or contains gaps; the description of the work strategy is insufficient to understand how the findings were reached.

2

weak

There is incoherence between the question and the procedure; the manuscript does not explain how the information was processed.

1

insufficient

4. Quality of the analysis and discussion. To what extent does the article analyze its findings with rigor, discuss them on solid grounds, and formulate consistent conclusions?

Assigned score

The discussion establishes deep tensions or confirmations in relation to the literature, leading to conclusions formulated with rigor.

4

strong

The manuscript develops its own line of reasoning, contrasts its findings with relevant literature, and presents conclusions that follow logically from the analysis.

3

adequate

The analysis is limited; results are presented but are not articulated in an academic discussion consistent with other authors.

2

weak

There is no analysis or interpretation; the conclusions are statements unsupported by the evidence presented in the body of the text.

1

insufficient

5. Bibliographic references and sources. To what extent does the article rely on relevant, sufficient, and effectively integrated sources?

Assigned score

The sources are specific to the problem addressed and are used with analytical consistency that strengthens each of the author’s arguments. The manuscript also uses the sources required for an in-depth development of its problem: foundational works in the case of theoretical developments, and recent literature in applied studies.

4

strong

The bibliographic repertoire is sufficient and relevant; the references are integrated into the development of the work and reflect knowledge of the field. The manuscript also uses the sources required for an in-depth development of its problem: foundational works in the case of theoretical developments, and recent literature in applied studies.

3

adequate

The bibliography is limited or insufficiently up to date; sources are cited tangentially and do not genuinely support the discussion of the problem.

2

weak

The sources are irrelevant to the topic, or key references needed to support the object of study are missing.

1

insufficient

6. Integrity and ethical considerations. To what extent does the article demonstrate academic integrity and ensure the responsible treatment of information?

Assigned score

The manuscript uses sources appropriately and demonstrates impeccable academic integrity. It is deeply responsible and respectful of agreements, practices, and customs when the work involves communities or takes place in their territories.

4

strong

The manuscript uses sources appropriately and meets basic ethical criteria; no biases are detected that would compromise validity, and the treatment of data is appropriate. No biases are detected that would compromise the handling of data, agreements, practices, or customs when the work involves communities or takes place in their territories.

3

adequate

There are minor shortcomings in the use of data or in ethical contextualization; greater care is required in the handling of data, agreements, practices, and customs when the work involves communities or takes place in their territories.

2

weak

Serious ethical issues or biases are evident and compromise the integrity of the work, including inappropriate use of sources or data, lack of respect for safeguards, agreements, or customs in work with communities, or failure to give due recognition.

1

insufficient

-Accept without changes

-Accept with minor revisions

-Reevaluate after major revisions

-Reject