Review Process
The journal follows a double-blind peer review process.
All submissions first receive an initial editorial assessment to ensure they align with the journal’s scope and meet the Author Guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are returned to the authors and can be desk rejected. Those that meet the requirements move on to a double-blind peer review process.
The decision to publish the article or not is based on the evaluations of two independent external reviewers, followed by a final verdict from the Editorial Team. If revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the authors for modification and then reevaluated before the final editorial decision.
Detailed information on the peer review process is available below under “Double-Blind Peer Review Process”.
Articles approved for publication are first made available online as Early Access. The Editorial Team then reserves the right to include them in the most appropriate issue.
Reviewers are asked to complete a Review Form, in which they provide detailed comments for the author, rate different aspects of the article, provide additional comments for the Editors, and make a recommendation regarding the acceptance or rejection of the submitted manuscript.
Once reviewers have completed the Review Form and submitted it through the OBS* platform, they receive a certificate of acknowledgment, while their names and institutional affiliations are published later in the journal’s annual list of reviewers.
Authors and co-authors submitting manuscripts are also encouraged to become reviewers for Observatorio (OBS*).
Double-Blind Peer Review Process:
All articles submitted to Observatorio (OBS*) are subject to double-blind peer review, both reviewers being from different institutional and geographic affiliations.
The journal seeks reviewers who are academic or industry experts from a wide range of areas in the field Communication Studies, with at least one reviewer being a native speaker of the language of the manuscript under review.
Both reviewers must accept Observatorio (OBS*)’s Review Process and have read and accepted the Reviewer Guidelines.
Steps in the Peer Review Process:
- Initial review – The Editorial Team evaluates each submitted article to determine if it is appropriate for consideration by Observatorio (OBS*). Manuscripts that do not meet the Author Guidelines are returned to the authors and can be desk rejected.
- Peer Review – Articles that pass the initial analysis are assigned to an Editor, who selects two reviewers based on their expertise in the relevant area of Communication Studies and their proficiency in the manuscript’s language. The journal follows a double-blind peer review process, and reviewers provide both quantitative ratings and qualitative comments.
- Recommendation – After receiving the completed Review Form from two different reviewers, the Editorial Team considers their ratings, comments and recommendation to make a decision on acceptance or rejection of the article. The editorial decision is communicated to the author along with the reviewers’ comments.
- Revisions – If the article falls within the Revision (major or minor) categories, the author is invited to provide a revised version. The revised manuscript will usually be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation in a new round of evaluation, though additional reviewers may be consulted if necessary.
- Publication – If a manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to copyediting, production, and online publication. Articles are first made available online following the journal’s early-access model and are subsequently assigned to the issue considered most appropriate by the Editorial Team.
Reviewer Guidelines:
Reviewers in the role of external referees are asked to provide the Editorial Team with their expert evaluation of the submitted manuscript.
Referees should follow the suggested Review Form and its guidelines to ensure that the review for a given manuscript is clear and specific.
The Comments to Authors section should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and offer suggestions for improvement. Constructive, professional, and actionable feedback helps authors understand the rationale for recommended revisions and improve the quality of their work.
In addition, when uploading the completed Review Form into the Observatorio (OBS*) platform, reviewers must select one of the following recommendation options:
- Accept submission
- Minor revisions required
- Major revisions required
- Resubmit elsewhere
- Decline
Review Time:
We strive to make the review process as quick and efficient as possible. However, the review process timeline varies across articles, as it depends on our reviewers’ availability and responsiveness.
After each round of the peer review process, Editors will send Review Comments to the author(s) of the article under consideration.
When an article passes through the review process and is approved by the Editorial Team it is made public available as Early Access to reduce the time between submission and publication.
Confidentiality of Review:
Reviewers and Editors are requested to treat the contents of the article under review as strictly confidential information, and not to share them with others prior to publication.
Peer review is intended to be a scholarly contribution based on the reviewer’s own expertise. Therefore, the use of AI tools is strictly prohibited for the propose of completing a Peer Review.
