Peer review Policy

As a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Revista de Comunicación y Salud is committed to subjecting each submitted manuscript to a rigorous review process, in which each stage must be successfully completed before advancing to the next. The journal ensures that more than 50% of reviewers are external to the Editorial Board and the publishing entity (see reviewer statistics). All manuscripts are evaluated confidentially and anonymously under a double-blind peer review system, meaning that authors are unaware of the reviewers’ identities and vice versa.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

Two reviewers are selected based on their area of expertise, ensuring an informed and expert evaluation of the manuscript. Additionally, reviewers must be independent of the author’s institution and unaffiliated with the journal’s editorial committees or boards. A list of reviewers is publicly available for the previous three years.

Reviewers will use the journal’s official review form and will recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept submission (publishable without changes)

  • Publishable with modifications

  • Reject submission

Peer Review Timeline

The estimated time for the peer review process depends largely on the number of review rounds required. However, the maximum duration for peer review—including any necessary rounds—is 90 calendar days.

The editor will send the author the review reports (duly anonymized), taking into account whatever the opinion of the reviewers may have been. The editor will record and notify the decisions at each stage of the review (if it has successfully passed the peer review; if it is publishable with modifications and carries or not a second round of review; or if the manuscript has not been approved for publication, therefore: the submission is rejected).

The author will have 7 days to submit the corrected manuscript to the editor, with a summary of the changes made and, if applicable, a justification of those discrepancies that lead to the non-modification of one or more of the aspects pointed out by the reviewers. If the author considers that there has been an error in the evaluation or requires additional clarification, he/she may contact the Editorial Committee to request a review of the process.

The journal allows a maximum of three review rounds. If consensus is not reached by the end of the third round, the manuscript will be rejected, as it will be considered that the required revisions have not been satisfactorily addressed.

Once the manuscript has been definitively accepted by the reviewers, the editor will notify the authors of the editorial decision and the manuscript’s transition to the Editorial Stage of the journal.

Evaluation and Review Guidelines

The review process at Revista de Comunicación y Salud adheres to its Code of Ethics. By submitting to the journal, authors fully accept this code and agree to comply with the present evaluation and review guidelines.

The initial stage of review is conducted anonymously by the Editorial Committee, which verifies the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s scope, quality standards, and thematic focus.

Manuscripts that pass this initial screening are sent to two academic reviewers with doctoral qualifications for double-blind peer review. In the event of a discrepancy between reviewers, a third evaluation will be requested. Recommendations made by reviewers must be incorporated into the revised manuscript, or scientifically justified if omitted. If this justification is not accepted by the reviewers and the assigned editor, the requested changes will be considered mandatory. Failure to comply will result in rejection of the manuscript.

Following the journal’s ethical code, reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts with independence, objectivity, responsibility, and no conflicts of interest, basing their assessments solely on academic merit. Reviewers must ensure the manuscript meets the formal and ethical standards required by the journal.

To prevent plagiarism, all submissions are checked using plagiarism detection software, with the results first reviewed by the Editorial Committee and made available to reviewers upon request. Reviewers may also conduct independent checks using free tools such as Grammarly, Google, or Ephorus.

Revista de Comunicación y Salud adheres to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct, following its core practices in editorial ethics.

Editorial Decision – Acceptance and Rejection Criteria

Acceptance Criteria

  • Thematic alignment: The article must align with the journal’s research areas and offer relevant content to its readership.

  • Scientific level of the authors: The academic background of the authors is assessed, including presence in international indexes and research credentials.

  • Consistency with the journal’s historical lines of research: The proposal should relate to the journal’s established themes and approaches.

  • Originality: The manuscript must contribute new ideas, innovative perspectives, or unpublished results.

  • External support and funding: Financial backing—public or private—may indicate the robustness and relevance of the research.

  • International collaboration: Co-authorship with researchers from different institutions or countries is positively valued.

  • Compliance with journal guidelines: The manuscript must follow the journal’s editorial norms regarding structure, style, citation, and format.

  • Scientific reliability and validity: The methodology must be sound, with reliable data and appropriate techniques.

  • Quality of results and conclusions: Findings should be well-founded and aligned with the study’s objectives, contributing meaningfully to the field.

  • Clarity and writing quality: The article should be well-written, precise, and free of spelling or grammatical errors.

  • Proper structure and data presentation: The manuscript should follow the IMRaD format, with well-designed tables and figures.

  • Updated references and low self-citation: Sources should be current and relevant, avoiding excessive self-citations.

  • Ethical conduct: The research must adhere to ethical standards in data collection, authorship, and scientific publishing.

Rejection Criteria

  • Out of scope: Manuscripts not aligned with the journal’s editorial focus are rejected without review.

  • Lack of academic relevance: If the authors lack recognized research credentials, the manuscript’s credibility may be compromised.

  • Disconnection from journal’s interests: Articles unrelated to the journal’s core themes and debates are not accepted.

  • Lack of originality: Manuscripts offering no novel contributions or replicating existing studies without added value will be rejected.

  • Absence of necessary funding: Studies requiring significant resources without proper funding may raise concerns about rigor.

  • Lack of international collaboration: Limited author diversity may reduce the manuscript’s global impact.

  • Failure to follow guidelines: Non-compliance with structural, citation, or formatting norms is grounds for rejection.

  • Methodological flaws: Design errors, data issues, or analytical weaknesses lead to rejection.

  • Weak results or unsubstantiated conclusions: Findings must be data-supported and aligned with study goals.

  • Poor writing and language: Grammatical errors and unclear phrasing hinder comprehension.

  • Inadequate structure and poor data presentation: Lack of academic organization or low-quality visuals are unacceptable.

  • Excessive self-citation or outdated references: Manuscripts should rely on current, relevant sources.

  • Ethical violations: Plagiarism, data manipulation, undeclared conflicts of interest, or other breaches of scientific integrity lead to automatic rejection.

 Once the evaluation process has been completed, the main author will be notified of the acceptance or rejection of the paper. Each editorial decision will be accompanied by the due arguments, based on the reviewers' reports, as well as the sending of these reports duly anonymized, indicating the key aspects that have led to the acceptance, request for modifications or rejection of the manuscript.