Peer Review

The journal uses the double-blind peer review system for the review of all articles. The process is as follows:

1. Upon receipt of the articles, they are received in the mail

The technical team of the journal will be responsible for uploading the file anonymously in the journal's system (OJS), a process in which the author will be able to verify each stage by logging into the web with the access data provided.
2. The editors of the journal will be in charge of the first review. At this point the objective is to verify that the article has complied with the guidelines.
3. If the article meets the guidelines of the journal, then the second phase begins, the assignment of two reviewers. The assignment of reviewers is done through the OJS platform, the review applies the double-blind system, i.e., the author does not know the identity of the reviewer and vice versa.
4. Reviewers can access the OJS platform to find the instructions, as well as the evaluation rubric.
5. After finishing the review, the reviewers will upload the result to the web page (OJS) and will also issue their verdict: article accepted, article accepted with modifications, resubmit for review, resubmit to another publication, or not publishable.
6. The editor will collect the two revisions and send the consolidated result to the author, indicating the date of sending the final version, if accepted.

Response to authors

Runas will notify the authors about the editorial committee’s decision to accept or reject the article for peer review within a term of 20 calendar days.

Runas will notify the authors about the peers’ decision (acceptance or rejection) within a term of 60 calendar days.



About the objective of peer review.

Remember, peer-review is intended to determine whether the manuscript in question is appropriate for publication. This is based on factors such as the scientific quality and relevance of the writing, as well as the clarity of writing among others, which helps to improve the quality of research and presentation of proposals before being published.

Therefore, the main objective of the article is to improve the quality of the assigned article. For this, we ask you to make constructive suggestions and criticisms, with respect to the work done by the author.

About the evaluation rubric.

For the evaluation of the article, you will be provided with a form on the web page, but you can also make more specific annotations and comments in the Microsoft Word file of the article.

- A form with specific items will be displayed, please read carefully and respond in each box. Remember that the form will be read by the editor and also by the author.

- If you make annotations to the file, at the end of submitting the review form, a section will appear to upload files, please upload it there. Before uploading remember to delete its file name to keep the revision double-blind.


-Initially perform a quick reading of the article to get a general idea of the article.

-Check the components of the formulary so that you know which areas are important to the journal and to pay more attention to them when performing the evaluation.

-Make a second reading and write the comments and suggestions you think are necessary.

-If you have any questions, please contact the editor who assigned you the article.





Does the title say precisely what the study is about?

Does it have a maximum of 20 words?

Do not use acronyms.

You can also give suggestions or alternative titles.


The article presents an ABSTRACT with a clear structure:

The author must not provide information or a conclusion that is not present in the text, nor should he cite bibliographical references.

The author must make clear the problem under investigation, the main objectives, and scope of the research, describe the methodology used, summarize the results, and generalize the main conclusions.



Will keywords help readers find the article?

Are they specific and represent the content of the manuscript?

Are they separated by semicolons (;)?



Are the following elements present?

Importance of the topic

Conceptual or historical background of the topic

Definition of the problem.

Objectives of the Article

Must contain a clear and simple approach to the problem, the previous references to address it, the possible questions and assumptions that guided the work, the objective and approach that the author used.


The evaluation of this section varies greatly depending on the type of article, especially in Humanities. The objective of this section in general terms should expose a clear methodology that the author used for the elaboration of his research or an academic proposal.

However, in some cases, you can apply the following instructions.

The methods section should give enough readers information so that they can undertake an investigation or understand how their investigation was developed. (Always according to the type of article)

It should be clear from the Methods section how all of the data in the Results section were obtained.

The study system should be clearly described. For example, researchers need to specify the number of study subjects; how, when, and where the subjects were recruited.

In most cases, the experiments should include appropriate controls or comparators.

The outcomes of the study should be defined.

The methods used to analyze the data must be statistically sound.

For qualitative studies and established qualitative research methods (e.g. grounded theory is often used in sociology) must be used as appropriate for the study question.

If the authors used a technique from a published study, they should include a citation and a summary of the procedure in the text.

All materials and instruments should be identified, including the supplier’s name and location. For example, “Tests were conducted with a Vulcanizer 2.0 (XYZ Instruments, Mumbai, India).”

The Methods section should not have information that belongs in another section (such as the Introduction or Results).


Depending on the article, you can be guided by some of the following instructions:

- There is a clear division of the different moments proposed in the text

- The wording is clear, and the information is presented in an organized and chronological way

- The ideas that the author wants to expose are clearly understood.

- The ideas and proposals are well-founded.

- The sources used by the author are sufficient (current, relevant, from prominent authors) or the author must add more information and authors.

- The author uses only specific information, not getting bogged down in ideas that are not relevant to the objective of the article.

- The author makes unnecessary quotes and redundant, obvious explanations. (Please indicate which ones)

- Use the quotes correctly.

- If the author uses tables and graphs. Place the title above and the source below.



Depending on the type of article, some authors will skip this section, the Discussion.  In some cases, the author may be suggested including this section and ending with the conclusion.

Some suggestions for this final section:

  • Does the discussion fit with the aims of the study stated in the Introduction?
  • Have the authors adequately compared their findings with the findings of other studies?
  • Does previous research on this topic support or refute the findings? Do the authors discuss these other studies?
  • Do the authors mention how the study’s results might influence future research?
  • Are the limitations of the study noted? If not, what limitations have you found? Are the authors’ conclusions supported by their data? Have the authors overstated the importance of their findings? Are the conclusions supported by the data?
  • Are important discussion points missing?
  • Do the authors suggest future research on this topic?
  • Do the authors discuss assumptions, limitations, and sources of bias?
  • Have the authors overlooked critical references and/or only selected a biased range of papers?



Select according to your criteria

  • The article opens space for the development of new research
  • The academic contribution is innovative and unprecedented.
  • The article contributes to new disciplinary knowledge
  • Is the theme of the article a significant contribution to the discipline, therefore, be well received and have an impact on the community?


  1. Comments and suggestions to the author

You can write suggestions or comments to the author to improve your research method, or you can also congratulate the author for certain affirmative actions in your text.