In order to follow good editorial practices and meet quality standards, Revista Cartográfica applies an evaluation process that is divided into two stages:

Editorial review

• Once the proposed article has arrived, the author will receive an acknowledgment of receipt via email.
• In the first place, the article will be reviewed by the editorial team. They will assess if it conforms to the themes of the journal and if it meets the requirements in terms of originality, relevance, methodological rigor, levels of scientific quality as well as the conditions established in guidelines for author.
• This first review also includes the use of Ithenticate anti-plagiarism software.
• If the submitted article does not conform to the theme of the journal or does not meet the requirements previously indicated, it may be rejected and the author will be informed of the reasons why the text cannot be admitted for evaluation. Likewise, if the article does not meet all the required requirements and but they are amenable of being corrected, the Editor will request the author to make the necessary changes to be able to admit it in a new evaluation process. In the event that the author does not make the requested modifications, it will be considered that there is no interest to prosecute with the evaluation process.

Peer review

• Articles that have passed the first stage of review will be subject to an external double-blind peer review. This task will be proposed to two expert reviewers on the article's subject. They will carry out the evaluation and issue the pertinent report by completing a standardized form. Part of this report will be confidential and reserved for the Editor, and a clearly indicated part will be communicated to the author.
• A period of one month will be granted for the external evaluators to issue their opinion. In the event of a substantial discrepancy, the collaboration of another evaluator will be requested. The final decision will be made by the Editor.
• External evaluators must indicate in the standardized form one of the following final evaluation options for the article they have evaluated:
  • To accept
  • Acceptable with modifications (changes suggested by evaluator and editor required).
    Not acceptable (rejected)
• The Editor will send the author the opinion issued by the external evaluators, as well as the decision adopted detailing the reasons that have motivated the same.
• The articles that received the evaluation "Acceptable with modification" (and provided in the observations section it is clearly stated that they require a later revision) will be reviewed again by at least one external evaluator. As far as possible, the expert will be the same as the first review, but in the event that he / she does not agree to carry out the second review, another expert on the subject of the article will be used.
• The Editor will adopt the necessary measures on all occasions to maintain the anonymity of both the author and the reviewers.
• Once the definitive version of the article has been received from the author, the editorial team will verify if the changes were made in cases where the assessment has been "Acceptable with modifications"
• The editorial staff of the journal reserves the right to make the style correction and editorial changes that it deems pertinent to unify the editorial presence.