All articles that meet the formal requirements and scope established by Kipus: Andean Journal of Literature and Cultural Studies will be forwarded to the editors of the dossiers published in each issue, who will submit them to an external evaluation by at least two anonymous peer reviewers. Additional reviews may be requested by the editors whenever deemed necessary. Manuscripts will circulate anonymously.

The outcome of this evaluation will be known to the editors and the editorial team. Evaluation criteria include originality, relevance of the topic, appropriate problem formulation, broad theoretical or conceptual discussion, proper use of analytical methods, clear presentation of results, and the relevance of the bibliography. In addition, appropriate language use (Spanish), clarity, and rigor of exposition will be assessed.

Kipus: Andean Journal of Literature and Cultural Studies reserves the right to accept or reject submitted articles, essays, or reviews; the final decision rests with the editor. Publication of texts may also be deferred to future issues if deemed appropriate, with prior notification to the author.

The evaluation process for an article takes an average of six weeks.

Preliminary Review

Within two weeks, the editor will send an email to the corresponding author (who submitted the article through the OJS platform) informing them of the decision to accept or reject the manuscript for continuation in the process. If accepted, the article proceeds to peer review evaluation.

The initial review considers the following aspects:

1. The manuscript is submitted through the Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar journal system (OJS).
2. The manuscript falls within the thematic scope and editorial policy of the journal.
3. Authorship information and institutional affiliation details, including the ORCID number, are complete and submitted in a separate file.
4. The author guidelines regarding section, structure, and manuscript length have been followed.
5. Citations and bibliographic references are up to date, follow the Author-Date System (ADS), and include their respective URL and/or DOI links.
6. The manuscript has not been published nor is under consideration for publication in another journal.
7. The manuscript passes plagiarism screening.
8. The copyright transfer document granting Kipus: Andean Journal of Literature and Cultural Studies first publication rights is attached.

If manuscripts fail to comply with any of the above requirements, and there is no evidence of plagiarism or prior publication, authors will be granted a period of 10 days to submit a corrected version.

Manuscripts accepted for review begin the peer review process, and the author will be informed through the Kipus: Andean Journal of Literature and Cultural Studies OJS platform.

Peer Review Process

All articles that meet the formal requirements and scope established by Kipus: Andean Journal of Literature and Cultural Studies will be forwarded to the editor or editors of the corresponding dossier, who will submit them to an external double-blind peer review process. Additional reviews may be requested whenever considered necessary. Manuscripts will circulate anonymously.

Before beginning the review, reviewers must approve the confidentiality and conflict of interest statement:

Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Statement

I understand that I will have access to confidential information and therefore may not use the information to which I have access (such as disclosure of results prior to publication or disclosure of the evaluations produced) for personal benefit, nor disclose it or make it available to any other individual or organization. If, during the reading of the manuscript, I identify any ethical impediment or conflict of interest that may affect my evaluation, I will inform the editor so that the manuscript may be reassigned to another reviewer.

Subsequently, reviewers must complete three types of assessment: a summary evaluation of the article’s quality using a rubric, detailed comments and observations indicating line numbers or including comments directly in the manuscript, and an editorial recommendation.

The evaluation criteria included in the rubric, and which form the basis for comments and observations, include originality, relevance of the topic, appropriate problem formulation, broad theoretical or conceptual discussion, proper use of analytical methods, clear presentation of results, and the pertinence and relevance of the bibliography. In addition, proper language use (Spanish), clarity, and rigor of exposition will be assessed.

The editorial recommendation will follow one of the following criteria:

1. Accept submission. This means the manuscript is accepted without revisions and may proceed to the editing stage.
2. Publishable with modifications. In this case, the author must, within the timeframe established by the editors, correct, reformulate, or expand upon the aspects indicated in the evaluation.
3. Resubmit for review. This requires the author to make substantial changes and undergo another round of peer review.
4. Resubmit to another publication. In this case, the author is advised to submit the manuscript to another journal of Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar due to thematic relevance.
5. Not publishable. This means the submission did not pass peer review and is not suitable for further consideration. The submission will then be archived. The editor will communicate this decision to the author through the Kipus: Revista Andina de Letras y Estudios Culturales OJS platform.
6. See comments. In this case, no recommendation is issued, and the editor’s decision is requested based on the review comments.

To carry out this work, reviewers are provided with a review form, which must be completed and submitted through the Kipus: Andean Journal of Literature and Cultural Studies platform.

The result of this evaluation will be known to the editor and the editorial team.

Kipus: Andean Journal of Literature and Cultural Studies reserves the right to accept or reject submitted articles, essays, or reviews; the final decision rests with the dossier or issue editor. Publication of these texts may also be postponed to future issues if deemed appropriate, with prior notification to the author.

The peer review evaluation process takes an average of four weeks. However, in the event of discrepancies between reviewers, the editor may request additional reviews, extending the process by at least two weeks.

Ethical Practices for Reviewers

• Conduct a critical, honest, constructive, and unbiased review that ensures the academic quality of the research article.
• Immediately notify the editor if, for any reason, they are unable to evaluate the article, either because it falls outside their field of expertise or because they cannot meet the established review deadlines.
• Maintain confidentiality at all times regarding the authorship of the article under review.
• Submit evaluation reports using the designated review template, providing justification for the assessments supporting their decision.
• Accurately indicate bibliographic references to essential works that may have been overlooked by the author.
• Inform the editors of any similarity between the research article and other works previously published by the same author or by others.

At all times, the evaluation process is conducted anonymously. If, for any reason, the identity of the authors, their institutional affiliations, or any other information compromising the anonymity of the manuscript becomes known, the reviewer must immediately notify the editors.