Each article is reviewed by at least two readers elected by the editorial board. The reviewers will evaluate the submitted text indicating whether or how it complies with the following requirements:
1. It is innovating and represents an important contribution to the approached theme;
2. It is laboured in accordance with the linguistic and methodological academical standards.

Reviewers have also the right to make suggestions or to give recommendations so that the quality of the submitted text to be improved (e.g. the coherence and the precision of the argument, way of expression, supplementary bibliography). Authors will receive a copy of the anonymous accounts of the reviewers. Also, authors might be required to revise the submitted text according to the received suggestions. The publication of the text is conditioned by the way authors respond to the reviewers? recommendations.



SUMMARY OF REVIEWERS NOTE ON CRITERIA:
Abstract
Perspective(s) or theoretical framework
Objectives
Methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry
Data sources, evidence, objects or materials
Results and/or substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/point of view
Scientific or scholarly significance of the study or work
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF THE CONTENT:
Scientific quality
Depth of research
Lack of errors, misconceptions
Ambiguities
Sufficient and solid / reliable data sources
Clarity of the presentation
Originality
Contribution to the field
Conclusions and limits / implications
Relevance of biographical sources