First stage: internal evaluation

Articles received will be evaluated in the first instance by the Editorial Committee, verifying whether they meet the basic requirements of a scientific article, are within the journal's standards and conform to Runa's approach and policies. If the article is considered within the acceptable parameters of the journal's norms and guidelines, the author will be informed that his/her work will be evaluated by external reviewers -national and/or international- under the double-blind system (maintaining anonymity between author/s and reviewers).

If the article is within the parameters but does not conform to the stipulated manuscript submission guidelines, Runa may request the author/s to submit the manuscript according to the guidelines within a period of no more than seven days. If the Editorial Committee considers that the contribution received does not meet the focus and/or the minimum requirements for publication in this journal, the author will be informed of the article's irrelevance.

Second stage: external evaluation

If the article passes the first stage, the Editorial Team will select two external evaluators with national and/or international affiliations to review the article. They will be researchers and/or academics with recognized experience and expertise in the area of the article to be evaluated and with the same or higher academic level than the authors of the article.
The evaluators will have a time stipulated by the Editorial Committee of 30 (thirty) days to evaluate the article. Their opinion should be based on criteria of pertinence, originality and academic quality, established by the journal.
They may suggest modifications related to the content, structure, methodology, data and/or bibliographical references that they consider significant and pertinent to the evaluated work. They should be based on criteria defined in the corresponding form, be objective and respectful of dissent, promoting the construction and critical exchange and tending to guide and improve the contributions. The reviewers, according to their evaluation, should select a decision among those defined by the journal, which may be:

Accept its publication without changes. The submission must meet the requirements of a scientific article, be correctly structured and developed and meet the requirements of the journal (originality, timeliness, be correctly written, be the result of research, contain a clear methodological development and a consistent analysis of the data, discussion with updated bibliography, etc.). If there is agreement among the different reviewers in the evaluation, the authors will be informed of the acceptance of the article and the planning of its publication. The article goes to the editing and proofreading stage.

Accept its publication with minor modifications. In this case for articles that fall within the parameters mentioned above but require stylistic modifications, orthotypographic correction, or minimal content modifications.
In this case, unless explicitly requested by the evaluator, the article will not require a new review of the referee on the modifications made. The editorial team will be in charge of monitoring that the suggestions made are incorporated into the text by the author. If the reviewers agree, once the modifications have been made, the article is accepted and goes to the editing stage.

Accept publication with major modifications. For articles that although they are considered within the aforementioned parameters, the evaluation requests major modifications as a requirement for acceptance. These modifications may refer to the content of the article, to the structure, to its writing, to the incorporation of more sustained data and/or arguments, to the bibliography, etc. The author(s) will be sent the opinions with the reviewers' suggestions and will have a period of 20 (twenty) days to make the suggested modifications.
Once the article modified by the author is uploaded again to the system, a second round will be initiated in which the reviewers who requested modifications will participate, who must endorse -or not- the modifications, within a period of no more than 15 (fifteen) days.
After this second round, if the article is approved in the modifications made, it goes to the editing stage. If the evaluators consider that the suggestions have not been incorporated, the Editorial Team may decide - according to the opinions and its academic criteria - to request new modifications to the author, or to reject it.

Reject publication. The reviewer considers that the evaluated article has important flaws and/or does not meet the minimum requirements to be published in the journal according to the journal's standards. If the reviewers' evaluation agrees not to accept the article for publication, the editors will inform the author(s) of the decision through an e-mail together with the reviewers' opinions and/or an explanation of why the article is not pertinent for publication in Runa.

Resolution of controversies

In case of controversies between the evaluators (an acceptance / rejection) the Editorial Committee will request the opinion of a third referee. If the evaluation results in a rejection and an acceptance with major modifications, the Editorial Committee will evaluate if it is pertinent to request the opinion of a third referee or suggest the author to rewrite his/her contribution and send it again.
The Editorial Committee has, in the last instance, the final decision to publish, archive or reject the contributions received. This decision is taken under its responsibility and according to the analysis of the opinions and the controversies that may have arisen in them. The Editorial Committee has the power to reject the contributions received at any stage of the process -even after having passed the reviewers' stage-, if any type of ethical misconduct or undeclared conflict of interest is detected.

In case the author is asked to make modifications, he/she must take into account the suggestions and observations of the reviewers and the Editorial Team of the journal, and must commit to make such modifications within 20 (twenty) days. At the moment of uploading the new document with the modifications made, the author should also send an e-mail to the editors with a copy to runa.revista@gmail.com with a document summarizing the changes made and/or, in case of not agreeing, nor incorporating suggested modifications, the justification for it. The result of the evaluation and the journal's decision will be communicated to the author within approximately six months. If this period is exceeded, the author will be informed of the situation in which he/she finds himself/herself.

Third stage: Proofreading and editing

After the evaluation stage, the Editorial Team will inform the author(s) that the article has been accepted for publication and will plan the issue in which it will be published.
The article will enter the Style Correction process. During this process, the editorial team may consult or ask the authors for formal style corrections based on the proofreaders' suggestions. The author must commit to respond, make the corrections and/or provide the missing data within 5 (five) days.
This will be the last instance in which the author will be able to make some modifications to the text related to narrative aspects, which do not modify the meaning and/or data of the content already evaluated.
If the corrections made by the proofreader are minimal, related to spelling issues and do not affect the wording and/or sense of the article, the Editorial Team is authorized to accept them without prior consultation with the author(s).
Once the style correction is finished, the article will go to layout and layout, the last stage before publication. At this stage, the author may be asked to review the galley proof and inform the Editorial Team within 5 (five) days of any spelling and/or layout errors.