Peer Review Process

Córima, Revista de Investigación en Gestión Cultural applies an evaluation process in two stages: initial editorial review and academic peer review in double-blind mode. This procedure aims to guarantee academic quality, thematic pertinence, and integrity of the works submitted for consideration by the journal.

Initial Editorial Review

All received manuscripts are reviewed by the editorial team to verify that they comply with the formal submission requirements, with the journal's focus and scope, and with the author guidelines. In this stage, a similarity check is also performed using the tool adopted by the journal for detecting textual overlaps. Works that present substantial non-compliance regarding originality, thematic pertinence, anonymization, or editorial requirements may be rejected before passing to academic review.

Academic Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the editorial review are sent to two external reviewers, specialists in the same thematic area of the text, under double-blind mode, so that the anonymity of both the authors and those who evaluate is preserved. Reviewers are selected based on their academic experience and without conflict of interest regarding the evaluated manuscript.

The evaluation considers, among other aspects, the originality of the work, its pertinence for the field of Cultural Management, theoretical and methodological solidity, argumentative coherence, relevance of findings, and quality of the bibliography used. Reviewers have a maximum period of four weeks to issue their review.

Results of the Review

The evaluation result may be one of the following:

  • Accepted

  • Accepted with changes

  • Rejected

When both reviews are favorable, the manuscript will continue its editorial process. When both are unfavorable, the manuscript will be rejected. If the reviews present contradictory results, the text will be sent to a third reviewer, whose opinion will contribute to the final editorial decision.

For a manuscript to be approved, it must have at least two favorable reviews.

Corrections by the Authors

When the review is favorable with observations, the manuscript will be returned to the corresponding author together with the evaluation comments in anonymized version. In those cases, the authors will have 15 calendar days to send the corrected version, unless the editorial team establishes a different period according to the nature of the requested modifications.

If after the review of the new version substantial observations persist, the journal may request a second round of adjustments. The continuity of the process will be subject to the editorial assessment of the response delivered by the authors.

Confidentiality and Appeals

The evaluation process develops under criteria of confidentiality, impartiality, and academic respect. Participants in the review must not disclose, circulate, or use for their own benefit the information contained in the received manuscripts.

When an author considers that there is a substantial observation that merits review, they may present a duly grounded appeal request to the editorial team. The Editorial Council will resolve each case according to the journal's policies and editorial integrity principles.

Estimated Process Times

Córima seeks that the editorial and academic evaluation process develops with opportunity and clarity. The estimated time between manuscript reception and first editorial decision is up to 45 calendar days, provided that the text complies with the basic submission requirements and passes peer review.

In case the manuscript is sent to academic review, reviewers will have up to four weeks to issue their evaluation. When the manuscript requires corrections, the author's response time will be 15 calendar days per review round, unless the editorial team establishes a different period due to the nature of the observations.

When there are contradictory reviews or a third evaluation is necessary, the total process time may extend proportionally. The journal will timely notify the authors of any significant delay and, if necessary, inform the causes of the delay (The indicated times are estimated and may vary according to the availability of reviewers, compliance with requested corrections, and manuscript complexity).

Final Editorial Decision

The final decision on the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript corresponds to the editorial team and the Editorial Council of the journal, based on the academic reviews issued and on compliance with current editorial policies.