Review Process

1. Submission

2. Preliminary screening by Editors

3. Double-Blind peer review

4. Decision after first round of reviews

5. Submission of revised version

6. Decision after second rounds of reviews

7. Production and publication


1. Submission

Isonomía accepts submissions of Research Articles, Essays, Book Reviews, Forum, Interviews and Translations on a rolling basis. 

After registration, all submissions must be made online through our OJS platform. A submission checklist and full instructions are provided.

All submissions are subject to a preliminary screening by the Editors. Research Articles, once passed the preliminary screening, are then subject to a comprehensive double-blind peer review process. Decisions on Essays, Forum, Book Reviews and Translations are instead made by the Editors.


2. Preliminary screening by the Editors

All submissions are first screened by Isonomía Editors to determine whether the submission fits the Journal’s scope and subject matter, meets the minimum standards of academic writing and publishing and offers an original and innovative contribution to the literature (with the exception of Translations).

If a submission is rejected at this stage, the authors shall be informed about the grounds of such rejection. Submissions that pass the initial screening fall in two cases. In the case of Essays, Forum, Book Reviews and Translations authors acceptance and rejection decisions are made directly by the Editors. In the case of Research Articles, they are sent for peer review as described in the next step. Isonomía commits to notify authors within five days from submission as to whether their work has been passed on for peer-review, or rejected.


3. Double-Blind peer review

The manuscript is sent to two reviewers for blind peer review. Using the journals’ template to facilitate and standardize the review process, reviewers evaluate the submission and decide whether to:

(i) reject the article

(ii) propose a “revise and resubmit”

(iii) accept the article with major changes

(iv) accept the article with minor changes

Referees may communicate their availability to revise new versions of the submission.

The Editors ensure that all decisions are justified and follow the Journal’s template.

Reviewers are expected to submit their assessments within one month from the date of receipt of the submission.


4. Decision after the first-round of reviews

Editors shall inform authors of the outcome of the “double-blind peer review” process enclosing the reviewers’ reports which may:

(i) reject the submission

(ii) revise and resubmit

(iii) accept the submission

All reports and decisions are properly justified.

If one the reviewers rejects the article whereas the other one accepts it, the Editors may send the manuscript to a third referee whenever both reports were consistent and well-grounded. If however, the Editors find that in one of the reports the decision is not grounded on the nature and scope of the comments made, they may decide to ask the author to submit a new version addressing the points raised by the reviewer.

Whenever the author is asked to submit a new version, he or she must confirm its availability to do so in the timeline proposed by the Editors. Any doubts or disagreements regarding the nature and the scope of the changes to be made shall be addressed directly with the Editors. The revised version must track the changes made to the original submission as well as be accompanied by a letter to the Editors explaining and justifying both the changes made following the reviews and those requests the author deemed unwarranted. The author of an accepted manuscript must then provide a definitive version of the article that complies with the Isonomía Style Guide.


5. Submission of revised version

Whenever minor changes to a manuscript were requested, the new revised version shall be sent to the first-round reviewers if they so asked or otherwise is examined by the Editors. Either way, the new version is subject to a simplified review process devoted to checking whether the author has adequately addressed the proposed changes. 

Whenever major changes to a manuscript were requested, the new revised version shall be subject to a new fully-fledged “double blind peer review process”. Depending on their availability to do so, first-round reviewers may revise this new submission too. Otherwise, Editors shall assign new reviewers.


6. Decision after the second-round of reviews

After receiving the second set of reviews, Editors may:

(i) reject definitively the article

(ii) ask for further changes

(iii) accept the article with minor changes

(iv) accept the article as it is

Editors inform authors of the decision made. In cases (iii) and (iv) authors are further asked to prepare the manuscript for production making sure the manuscript complies with the Isonomía Style Guide.


7. Production and publication

Editors review the final version of a submission accepted for publication with an eye to detecting any missing formal or bibliographical details. These changes, as well as any other last-minute formal and stylistic changes, shall be made by the authors. After the authors confirm the definitive word version of the submission, no further changes to the manuscript will be allowed.

Production of the submission entails the generation of a file in EPUB, HTML, LIA and PDF formats. Authors confirm that the PDF file is accurate, after which the article is ready for publication.