Peer-review process

Texts in Process (TEP) follows the following evaluation process:

1. The editors receive the manuscript, evaluate its adaptation to the editorial guidelines and decide in the first instance its acceptance.

2. If accepted, the work is sent to the Academic Committee and to external reviewers, who send a report to the editors. The identity of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous in this instance.

3. From the reports received, the editors make the final decision regarding the publication of the manuscript. This can be: a) accept it; b) accept it with changes; c) request changes and reassess the possibility of publication; d) reject it. The decision is informed to all those involved in the process.

Since the review process is by anonymous peers, the identity of the authors as evaluators is hidden from those involved. As a general rule, the manuscript should not have any data it can do. Specifically, the authors have to be written in their manuscripts. For the preparation of the manuscript, it must be ensured that the following norms are met:

1. The third person is used to refer to the works of the author or authors.

2. In the case of self-citations or bibliographic self-references, they are replaced by the following legend, highlighted in yellow [OMITTED].

3. No acknowledgments are included.

4. References to research projects and / or funding sources are not included.

Once the text has been accepted for publication, send (upload to the system) the final version with all the necessary information correctly included.

In cases, in which the evaluators consider "Not publishable", the manuscript sent, the Editorial Board will communicate the decision to the author of the correspondence, motivating the editorial decision.


The reviewers follow the review model that is detailed below to prepare their reports.


TEP - Review Report
Thank you for submitting a manuscript for Texts in Progress.

This arbitration is a blind peer review process; that is, authors and evaluators should not know their identities. The editors of this magazine strongly request that, if there is any information that betrays this process, it should be communicated to the Editorial Committee.

All the information provided will be treated confidentially.

Respond by selecting an answer and then typing in the appropriate boxes.

1. Are the minimum expected contents identified for the type of manuscript evaluated?

2. Does the manuscript contain appropriate information to justify its publication?

3. Is the summary (abstract) clear and precise?

4. Are theoretical, methodological reflections or total or partial research results found in the manuscript?

5. Are thematic, theoretical, empirical and / or terminological initiatives proposed?

6. Can the subject be inscribed within the area of ​​pragmatics, socio-pragmatics and / or socio-cultural pragmatics?

7. What type of manuscript do you think you have evaluated?

8. What evaluation do you make of the manuscript?

9. What recommend to the publishers?