Review Process

Evaluation criteria

The following criteria, among others, will be evaluated:

• That the article is the result of a funded research project.
• Originality, timeliness and innovation.
• Relevance to the fields covered by the journal.
• Methodological quality, good presentation and writing.

Recepcion of originals

Upon receipt of a manuscript by Latente, it is subject to a preliminary evaluation by the journal's Editorial Board.

If it is deemed suitable for publication, the article will be assigned to an editor, who will oversee the blind peer review process and subsequent stages until the entire editorial process is complete.

Sections and peer review

The journal is structured into five sections. Blind peer review is applied exclusively to the “Articles” section, which is organized as follows:

• Monographs (subject to double-blind peer review): articles that make up a collection dedicated to a specific topic in each issue.
• Articles (subject to double-blind peer review): miscellaneous articles unrelated to the monographic theme of each issue.
• Interviews (not subject to peer review): interviews of interest to academic research in the areas and interests of the journal.
• Documents (not subject to peer review): unpublished primary sources (transcripts of documents, film scripts, etc.).
• Reviews (not subject to peer review): reviews of academic books.

Peer review process

This process is carried out exclusively by external reviewers and who, by virtue of their professional background, are highly knowledgeable in the disciplines of the manuscripts assigned to them for evaluation.

If the section to which the submission is assigned requires blind peer review, the editor will appoint two or more reviewers to issue their respective recommendations.

If only two reviewers are selected and their recommendations are contradictory, the editor responsible for supervising the manuscript will invite a third reviewer.

If, in light of the reviewers' recommendations, the manuscript requires modifications, the editor will ask the author to improve the article in accordance with the reviewers' instructions.

If the recommended modifications are significant, the manuscript may be subject to a new round of review.

During the evaluation process, the journal will guarantee the anonymity of the authors and the review team.

Submission of improvements by authors

If the manuscript requires corrections and/or additions, the author will be informed by the editor responsible for monitoring the process so that the recommended improvements can be incorporated into the manuscript.

Once the modifications to the text have been made, the author must submit the corrected version.

Manuscript acceptance

Upon receipt of the revised manuscript, the Editorial Board verifies that the changes adequately address the recommendations made by the reviewers and accepts the submission. This acceptance marks its progression to the subsequent stages, outside the peer-review process, namely editorial review, production, and final publication.

Review process duration

The maximum duration for the completion of the double-blind peer-review process and the acceptance of manuscripts is 10 weeks, distributed as follows:

– Reviewer acceptance of the invitation to review: up to 2 weeks
– Completion of the peer-review evaluation: up to 8 weeks
– In cases where revisions to the manuscript are required from the author(s): up to 4 weeks”

This estimated timeframe applies to manuscripts submitted within the deadline established by the journal in its Calls for Papers. In the case of manuscripts submitted outside this period, the time to publication may vary.