Review Process

All articles that meet the formal and thematic requirements established by Uru: Journal of Communication and Culture will be sent to the editors of each issue, who will submit them to an external evaluation by at least two double-blind peer reviewers. Additional reviews may be requested 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 formulation of the research problem, broad theoretical or conceptual discussion, proper use of analytical methods, clear presentation of results, and the relevance of the bibliography. In addition, proper language use, clarity, and expository rigor will be assessed.

The journal reserves the right to accept or reject submitted articles, essays, or reviews; the final decision rests with the editor. Publication may also be postponed to future issues when considered appropriate, with prior notification to the author.

The average evaluation process for an article takes six weeks.

Preliminary Review

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

The preliminary review considers the following points:

  1. The manuscript has been submitted through the journal system of Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar (OJS).

  2. The manuscript falls within the thematic scope of the journal.

  3. Authorship information and institutional affiliation data, including the mandatory ORCID number, are complete and submitted in a separate file.

  4. The author guidelines have been followed regarding section, structure, and manuscript length.

  5. Bibliographic references are up to date, follow the Chicago-Deusto style format (17th edition), and include their respective URL and/or DOI links.

  6. The manuscript has not been previously published in another journal.

  7. The manuscript passes plagiarism screening.

  8. The “Cover Letter,” signed and addressed to the editor of Uru: Journal of Communication and Culture, is attached to authorize the first publication of the manuscript.

  9. The “Authorship Declaration,” duly signed by each author, is attached to authorize the first publication of the manuscript.

  10. The “Copyright Transfer Agreement,” duly signed in favor of Uru: Journal of Communication and Culture, is attached to authorize the first publication of the manuscript.

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

Manuscripts accepted for review begin the peer-review process, and authors may track the process through the Uru: Journal of Communication and Culture platform.

Peer-Review Process

All articles that meet the formal and thematic requirements established by Uru: Journal of Communication and Culture will be sent to the guest editors of each issue, who will submit them to an external evaluation by at least two double-blind peer reviewers. Additional reviews may be requested whenever deemed necessary. Manuscripts will circulate anonymously.

Before beginning the review, reviewers must approve the confidentiality and conflict-of-interest declaration.

Confidentiality and Conflict-of-Interest Declaration

I understand that I will have access to confidential information; therefore, I 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 for the benefit of any other person or organization. If, during the review of the manuscript, I identify any ethical impediment or conflict of interest that may affect my judgment, I will inform the editor so that the document may be reassigned to another reviewer.

Subsequently, reviewers must complete three types of assessment: a summary of the article’s quality through 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, which also serve as the basis for comments and observations, include originality, relevance of the topic, appropriate formulation of the research problem, broad theoretical or conceptual discussion, proper use of analytical methods, clear presentation of results, and the relevance of the bibliography. In addition, proper language use, clarity, and expository rigor will be assessed.

The editorial recommendation follows one of the following criteria:

  1. Accept Submission. This means that the manuscript is accepted without revisions and may proceed to the editing stage.

  2. Publishable with Revisions. In this case, the author must, within a period determined by the editors, correct, reformulate, and expand the aspects required by the evaluation.

  3. Resubmit for Review. This requires the author to make substantial changes and undergo another round of 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 that the submission has not passed peer review and is not suitable for further consideration. The submission will then be moved to the Archives.

  6. See Comments. In this case, no specific recommendation is issued, and the editor’s decision is requested based on the review comments.

To carry out this task, reviewers are provided with a review form, which must be completed and attached when submitting the evaluation through the Uru: Journal of Communication and Culture platform.

The outcome of this evaluation will be known to the editors and the editorial team.

The journal reserves the right to accept or reject submitted articles, essays, or reviews; the final decision rests with the issue editor. Publication may also be postponed to future issues when considered appropriate, with prior notification to the author.

The average peer-review process for an article takes four weeks. However, in cases of disagreement between reviewers, additional reviews may be requested, extending the process by at least two weeks.

Ethical Practices for Reviewers

  • Conduct critical, honest, constructive, and unbiased reviews that ensure the academic quality of the research article.

  • Immediately notify the editors if, for any reason, they are unable to evaluate the article, whether because it falls outside their field of expertise or because they cannot deliver the evaluation report within the established deadlines.

  • Maintain confidentiality at all times regarding the authorship of the manuscript under review.

  • Submit evaluation reports using the designated review template, providing justification for the assessments that support their decision.

  • Precisely indicate bibliographic references to fundamental works that may have been overlooked by the author.

  • Inform the editors of any similarity between the research article and other previously published works.

The evaluation process is conducted anonymously at all times. If, for any reason, the identity of the authors, their institutional affiliations, or any other information that may compromise the anonymity of the document becomes known, the reviewer must immediately notify the editors.